‘Royal Suites fire was caused by negligence on part of occupants’

Apio had been invited to the room by a German expatriate, Dr Christoph Larsen, who together with a hotel employee Patrick Obbo escaped with burns.
Apio’s family and Dr Larsen got into a dispute with Royal Suites Hotel over whether the hotel was responsible for the accident and should, therefore, compensate the victims.

The hotel contracted Multiple Consult Network Limited to investigate the fire incident and the firm produced a report absolving the hotel of responsibility for the fire.
Here below we reproduce key excerpts of the report:

Dr Christoph H. Larsen, a German whose permanent address is P.O. Box 55, Buu Dien Nha Trang; 01 Pasteur Nha Trang, Vietnam, had been hired on a fixed term contract by M/s Management Science for Health, Inc. (MSH).
He was posted to the project office at 15 Princess Anne Drive, Bugolobi Kampala and was on the May 26, 2012, booked at Royal Suites in Room No. 315 on the third floor. He was joined by Ms Harriet Christine Apio on May 27, 2012.

After the fire incident, Dr Larsen in his email of the June 21, 2012, to Mr Frank Mawejje of Intercontinental Insurance Brokers and Mr Allan Mugwanya of Chartis Uganda Insurance Limited made a couple of allegations relating to the cause of the fire.
We have summarised the allegations hereunder and basing on the evaluated facts would respond to them as follows;

1) Dr Larsen’s contention on the cause of fire
Dr Larsen disputes the police report which stipulates that the cause of the fire was due to an electric spark. He contends that it was due to an abrupt explosion. We concur with Dr Larsen that the fire was due to an abrupt explosion for which the fuel of the combustion process must have been a gaseous fuel. This is because only liquid gas and gasoline have the potential of such explosive combustions.

We, however, rule out the presence of gasoline because all the police investigators and ourselves as insurance loss assessors who visited the scene a few hours after the explosion did not find any traces of gasoline, even by smell. This loud explosion was also noted by the hotel security staff as noted by Ms Letitia Kyarisiima who is the head of security at the hotel in her letter dated March 3, 2013.

Such explosive combustions are a basic characteristic of gaseous fuels due to their high affinity for oxygen and this rapid / explosive reaction generates heat and turns into flames quickly due to a very low boiling point of gaseous fuels some of which is below 0°C.

In any combustion process, there is an increase in temperature of the available air. With the volume of air kept constant and increasing the temperature, the laws of physics lead to increase of pressure and in this case this pressure builds rapidly leading to an explosion. It is such explosions that are used in firing rockets and in warfare explosives.

2) Dr Larsen claims that he obtained a severe abrasion on the left knee
Dr Larsen claims that after the explosion he obtained a severe abrasion on the left knee which was not a burns injury. He claims that he must have sustained it when he was thrown from his location due to the explosion.

As explained in 1) above, an explosion involves an instant pressure increase which forces/throws away any substance that cannot resist the force. An explosion creates an instant force which in this case had the ability to push away Dr Larsen and Ms Apio disregarding their proximity to the explosion.

In addition to the above, such explosions involve instant heat generation which involves loud noises and these are scary. There is also a possibility that Dr Larsen sustained the abrasion as a reflex action as he tried to jump away from the explosion.

3) Allegation that there was an excess outward force
There was an excessive outward force that destroyed the door structures of the balcony which indicated the presence of upward moving superheated gaseous substances.
As it can observed from the photographer 1, it is clearly visible that there was an outward force that broke the balcony door glass. This clearly indicates an explosive force whereby in such an apartment, this force could only be as a result of a spontaneous combustion process. This kind of explosive combustion was most likely as a result of gaseous fuel combustion.

When air is heated in a constant volume its pressure increases and the air will force an exit at the weakest point of the air containing vessel. In this case, the air pressure increased instantaneously and the weakest point of the room was the glass door. The heated air created an exit here hence breaking the glass.

4) Dr Larsen’s claims that his notebook/laptop lying on a wooden table was severely molten while the table remained reasonably intact
This claim supports an effect of certain burst of high temperature high enough to melt plastic and even hurt or kill people. But this is not high enough to make wood catch fire. Dr Larsen further states that he was cooking together with his friend at the time of the accident.

Solid plastics melt at temperatures between 200°C to 300°C whereas solid wood fuel experiences flammable combustion at temperatures between 600°C to 900°C. This means that the melting temperature of plastics is not high enough to cause flammable combustion of solid wood fuel.

On the other hand, the human surface body temperature averages at 37°C and one would get hurt if exposed to temperatures higher than that. A gas flame temperature ranges between 1400°C to 2400°C and this was the instantaneous temperature at the gas burner at the time of the explosion.

This temperature decreases as the distance from the centre of the explosion increases. Items which were some few meters away from the centre of the explosion were not exposed to the same very high temperature as those nearer to the centre of the explosion. This, together with the lower melting point of plastics as compared to the flammable temperature of wood, explains why the effect of the burning air/gas fuel mixture was different for each item in the room.

This further explains that the deceased was closer to the point of the explosion than Dr Larsen and hence she was exposed to temperatures which were too high for the human body/tissues/organs to contain and this ultimately caused her death.

Dr Larsen’s survival can only be explained by his longer distance from the centre of the explosion, otherwise he would have never survived after being exposed to an instantaneous temperature in the range of 200°C.

5) Allegation of gas leak under the gas stoves
Dr Larsen claims there must have been a gas leak under the kitchen surface such that gas being heavier that air could collect closer to the floor. Evidently it did not help that the balcony door was open. At some point the gas/air mixture must have reached the cooking flame. We rule out this allegation due to the following facts;

a) From the photograph 1, the red oval indicates the position of the gas burners under which there is the gas pipe, valve, clamp and tube which supplies the four gas burners of different sizes. The green oval indicates the position of the burnt wooden wardrobe at the extreme corner of the room.

Gas fuel is denser and hence heavier than air and it displaces the air from the floor level and occupies it. In case of a gas leakage there is a possibility of this leakage reaching the cooking flame on top of the burners and hence causing an explosion.
The appearance of part of the room after the fire incident

b) From photograph 2, we note that the wooden lockers under the gas burners were not affected by the fire. If the gas had leaked from underneath the burners, it would have filled up the lockers before connecting with the burning flame on top of the burners and this gas too would have burnt even more explosively than the gas on top of the burners due to having been confined in a smaller volume compared to the gas that had collected above the burners.

Additionally, the cooking dishes would have been thrown off the burners due to the force of the explosion but these were found still seated on the burners even the following day still containing raw food.

c) We should also note that the wardrobe, cupboard above the burners and the ceiling too were all severely burnt. This is an indication that the fire started above the burners and that is the point where the gas leakage was rather than below the burners.

The gas leaked and filled up the air space above the burners but it was not being burnt because there was no fire. By the time the deceased lit the burner(s) the gas concentration in the air was already too high and this burnt explosively due to availability of too much excess oxygen in the air. In the process the highly flammable items caught fire and burnt to different extents.
d) The gas pipes which supply the apartments are embedded in the walls and cannot be seen or accessed.

6. Allegation that there was no gas-marker smell noticeable at any point of time
The management of the hotel acquires its gas from M/s Shell (Uganda) Limited, a branch of a multinational corporation operating world-wide and all its cooking gas meets the international standards. The gas is supplied via a 2 tonne tank erected at a safe distance more than 60 meters away from the apartments. A 2-inch diameter copper pipe enclosed in a steel pipe encasement draws gas from the bulk tank to the individual buildings/floors, cookers etc. Along the pipe way, isolating emergency valves were strategically installed.

The hotel structure was constructed with reinforced concrete floors; reinforced cement rendered solid walls; double pitched clay tiled roof with fairly superior finishes. The walls are finished in ceramic tiles and carpets whereas the staircases are both of non-slip tiles and terrazzo. The property is secured with an approximately 2.5 meters concrete wall with electric fence crowning to keep away intruders. Entrance is through a 24-hour manned gate. Internally, surveillance is enhanced by CCTV network.

Furthermore, the hotel is installed with many hand held fire extinguishers in all corridors, some of which were used to put out the fire when the accident happened, and water horses which are connected to the pump at the swimming pool.

Cause of fire
In our effort to establish the proximate cause of the fire we noted the following amongst others;
a) The clamping connecting the steel pipe with the rubber tube as the pipe emerges from the wall
As can be seen from the photograph 3, the gas is delivered in a metallic pipe which is embedded in the wall. It then opened through a valve to a rubber tube to the individual burners. Each burner has got a separate valve and this is the one accessed by the user.

b) The gas supplied to the suites is low pressure and lacks the force to displace the clamps which holds gas tube firmly onto the metallic pipe from the main gas supply and to the burners.

Such gas stoves burn with a laminar/steady non-premixed flame where the gaseous fuel mixes with the air at the exit of the gas burner. If there was a gas leakage at any point under the burners then the air would have mixed with the gas and with presence of any source of ignition the explosion would then have included the bottom of the burners and hence all the wooden lockers would be burnt the most to ashes.

However, as noted earlier, it was evident form the taken photographs that the wooden lockers, under the gas burners where Dr Larsen suspect the gas leak to have been, were not burnt at all. This clearly indicates that the explosion was above the burners and this was the point where the gas leaked.

We are absolutely conclusive, basing on all our analysed evidence gathered at the scene, that the fire was as a result of an explosion above the burners due to some gas valves which were opened and not lit hence leaking the gas. On lighting the gas it had already circulated in the surrounding space consequently raising fuel/air ratio. The resultant combustion was hence explosive due to high gas concentration in the air.

From the analysis given above, it is apparent that the occupants of suite number 315 switched on a gas cooker and unknowingly or otherwise left the gas flowing. After sometime, the occupants most likely the lady proceeded to light the gas cooker oblivious of the fact that the flowing gas had engulfed the entire apartment.

As a result, an explosion that was accompanied by a severe fire ensued. The fire seriously injured the occupants, damaged in addition to the property of the hotel that of the customers to rubbles.

The damaged property of the occupants of suite number 315 (Dr Christoph Larsen and Harriet Christine Apio) that was immediately noticeable and recorded by Ms Leticia Kyarisiima of Royal Suites included the following;

Property of Dr Christoph Larsen which were given to Mr Vinh of MSA
a) Passport
b) Assorted documents / receipts
c) A pair of shoes
d) Glasses
e) A box containing certain items was gutted beyond recognition

Property belonging to Ms Apio
a) Umbrella
b) Passport
c) Tissues (one pac), Cocoplus oil, Miadi hair oil, tooth paste, make up kit, privacy perfume, bras, underwear and assorted clothes.
d) Vodafone modem
e) A bunch of keys,

The bearing of the established cause of fire on to the public liability policy issued by Chartis Insurance
Inspections and inquiries were conducted in which we established that the cause of the fire was due to the negligence on part of the occupants of suite number 315. This cause of fire was not due to the negligence of the insured and, therefore, would not have a bearing on the aspect of policy liability to the claimants which was issued by Chartis Insurance to Royal Suites due to the following factors;

a) According to the insuring agreement (operative clause), it is expressed that, the insurer will indemnify the insured in respect of an occurrence subject to the exceptions, terms of this section and the general terms against all sums that the insured shall during the period of insurance and within the policy territory become legally liable to pay as damages in respect of personal injury, property carnage, etc.
b) A legal liability may arise from three sources namely; tort, contract and statute,
c) In any negligence action, the claimant must show:
- That the insured owed a duty of care,
- That the insured failed to observe the required standard of care,

- That the breach of the standard of care caused damage / injury alleged by the claimant,
- That the insured ought reasonably to have foreseen that the particular damage or injury would result from his conduct.

From the survey which we conducted, the cause of the fire cannot under any circumstances be attributed to the negligence of the hotel management. On the contrary, the fire given the scientific backing above was without prejudice accidentally caused by the occupants of the suite at the time. Therefore, liability on the part of the insured and consequently to the insurer in our unprejudiced opinion would not engage.

Conclusion
This concludes our involvement in the matter and should you require any clarifications on the same please do not hesitate to revert.
Yours faithfully,
Multiple Consult Network Ltd

Richard Orbadia Bukenya Bsc (Hons) Mech. Eng Loss Assessor