Does the maxim “There’s no such thing as a good cause of fire” apply?

Sochacki v. Sas et al., [1947] 1 All E.R. 344, is another case in which the maxim was held inapplicable. There the plaintiff occupied a room on the second floor of the defendant’s premises, as a licensee. He left a fire burning in the grate of the fireplace while he went out for two or three hours. In his absence a fire occurred damaging the defendant’s property. Goddard C.J. said the most probable cause of the fire was that a spark jumped from the fire and set fire to the floorboards. There was no fireguard but the fireplace was there for the plaintiff’s use and there was an ordinary, natural and proper use of it with the consent of the defendant. In the course of his judgment Goddard C.J. said at p. 345: “Counsel for the defendants argued that I am bound to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, but I do not think this is a case of res ipsa loquitur. Everybody knows fires occur through accidents which happen without negligence on anybody’s part. There is nothing here to show that the plaintiff left any improper fire in his room, any larger fire than usual, a fire which was too large for the grate, or anything like that. There was a fire burning in his room. He left his room for two or three hours. I do not consider that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could possibly apply to a case such as this. I come to the conclusion here that there is no evidence of negligence against the plaintiff in this case, and without evidence of negligence there is no liability on the plaintiff for the fire.”