Blazing in neglect: Why accountability of owners and authorities under tort law is imperative
Despite having comprehensive legal provisions, the spectre of fire hazards looms large in the city of Dhaka. It is high time we scrutinise the roles of the owners of these buildings and crowded markets
As Bangladesh reels from the devastating aftermath of the infernos in Bangabazar and the New Supermarket in Dhaka, the once-thriving metropolis appears to be a ticking time bomb. Inhabitants now live in fear, anticipating a gruesome finale to their misery through chemical explosions, fire ignitions, and flammable elements. While the government is often at the receiving end of criticism, this ceaseless cycle of finger-pointing proves fruitless unless we acknowledge our culpability. Tragedies of Tazreen Garments, Nimtoli, Chawkbazar, Banani and Gulshan DNCC Market, Science Lab, and Banani FR Tower claimed countless lives.
But is the government solely to blame? Not by a long shot.
There is an abundance of legal dimensions relating to fire prevention, such as (1) Fire Prevention and Extinction Act of 2003; (2) Fire Prevention and Extinction Rules of 2014; (3) Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) of 2020; (4) SOP for Services and Clearance relating to Fire Extinction; (5) Building Construction Rules of 1996; and (6) The Factories Rules of 1979.
A myriad of authorities, including REHAB, the Fire Service and Civil Defence (FSCD), RAJUK, City Corporation, and various ministries, are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the implementation of fire prevention and safety measures. And yet, the situation remains dire. It is high time we scrutinise the roles of the owners of these buildings and crowded markets.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
According to data from the fire service, between 2004 and 2018, 89,923 fire incidents resulted in over 2,000 fatalities, 11,000 injuries, and an estimated Tk2,099.73 crore worth of property damage.
Part 4 of the BNBC outlines general fire protection requirements. The Fire Prevention and Extinguishing Act of 2003 and the Fire Prevention and Extinction Rules of 2014 further stipulate that the structural design or layout of a multi-story commercial building must obtain the approval of the Directorate General of Fire Service and Civil Defense as per Section 7 of the Act. The Act mandates the issuance of an occupancy certificate to verify that a building adheres to safety regulations.
So, why does the spectre of catastrophe still loom despite such comprehensive legal provisions? The answer lies in the negligence of owners and authorities toward compliance with relevant laws.
It is deeply disconcerting that out of the 1,162 buildings assessed by Dhaka's fire service officials last year, 136 were deemed "extremely risky" and 499 as "risky," according to media reports. In addition, numerous unauthorised chemical and plastic manufacturing and storage facilities continue to operate in old Dhaka. The Bangabazar Shopping Complex, for instance, was identified as a fire hazard four years ago. The DG responded to the accusation that the risk notice was ineffectual by asserting, "Our job is to identify the risky buildings and notify."
Establishing a productive authority for monitoring systems and fostering collaboration at the local level is indispensable for mitigating the threat of fatal fires. However, the Fire Services noted that the building owners had already received 10 notices warning them of the imminent danger.
Many experts might point fingers at the government and officials, but in this case, it seems unjust to place the entire blame on them. According to a 2020 study by the Bangladesh Institute of Planners, out of the 21.46 lakh establishments in the RAJUK area, a staggering 20.60 lakh lack approved designs. Merely 85,500 have adhered to proper layouts. It is unrealistic to expect RAJUK to bear responsibility for every disaster.
The concepts of "Duty of Care" and "Negligence" are discernible in these incidents. The "CCB Foundation v. Government of Bangladesh" is a case that established the precedent of seeking remedy under tort law, in addition to suing individual owners. Article 102 of the constitution also provides some remedies for compensation.
The tort law of negligence consists of four elements: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Every individual has a duty of care to exercise reasonable caution to prevent any omissions or acts that can foreseeably endanger those for whom they are responsible.
Establishing the duty of care
The first step in determining negligence is to establish the existence of a duty of care. The law conveys that if it is reasonably foreseeable that one might suffer some kind of damage or loss because of another individual, then a duty of care exists. There is also a standard by which one can discern whether an individual who has been accused of negligence is a prudent man in distinct circumstances. The abundance of care may differ to a tremendous magnitude while the standard remains the same.
The degree of care varies with the obviousness of the risk. In this case, if the danger of injury to the individual or property of another by the pursuit of a certain line of conduct is tremendous, more care is necessary. If the danger is slight, only a diminutive amount of care is mandated.
Owners and markets owe a duty of care to their tenants, employees, and customers to ensure the safety and well-being of all parties within their premises. Their standard of duty of care is also enormous.
This duty is recognised in various statutes, such as the Fire Prevention and Extinction Act 2003, Fire Prevention and Extinction Rules 2014, and the Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) 2020, which provides fire prevention and safety guidelines.
Breach of duty
To establish negligence, it must be proven that the owners have breached their duty of care. In the case of fire outbreaks, this breach can be evidenced by their failure to comply with relevant regulations or maintain adequate safety measures.
For instance, owners might have disregarded the need for approved building designs or ignored notices and warnings from authorities regarding fire hazards. Such breaches contribute to an increased risk of fire incidents and damage to life and property. It is foreseeable that the owner's breach of duty could result in fire outbreaks.
Causation and damages
Finally, it is essential to demonstrate that the breach of duty by the owners has directly caused damages to the aggrieved parties. In fire outbreaks, the damages can include loss of life, injuries, and property damage. The causal link between the owners' negligence and the damages suffered can be established through evidence of non-compliance with fire safety regulations, inadequate maintenance of fire prevention systems, or a lack of adherence to statutory requirements.
In this context, the owners are demonstrably liable for negligence, as they could foresee the potential chemical explosions and fire risks if laws were not adhered to, even at a minimal level. The owners could have anticipated the dangers, given that they had already received notices and warnings from the authorities.
Consequently, both wealth and human lives have been lost. Those affected should be mindful that they can seek extensive remedies in tort law and may yet find a glimmer of hope at the end of this tunnel.
Sadman Yeasar Alam, Student of North South University, Department of Law
Mobashshira Tabassum Rahi, Student of North South University, Department of Law
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
