The husband of a barrister who died while helping her children escape a fire at a glamping site is suing the company that ran it for more than £200,000.
Ruth Pingree, 42, died during the family holiday at Happy Days Retro Vacations in Suffolk in July 2022.
Her husband, Roland, is bringing the claim on behalf of her estate and their family, from Thames Ditton, alleging failures in fire safety at the site near Saxmundham, which has since closed.
Coroner Darren Stewart previously found that the fire may have started from stray embers or a cigarette butt left outside the caravan, which was surrounded by plastic astroturf.
The fire broke out some time before 4.30am on July 24, setting the exterior alight spreading inwards. The external aluminium of the caravan got so hot that the door became jammed shut.
When the children woke Mr Pingree up, the caravan was filled with a black, acrid smoke. He climbed out while Ruth stayed inside, passing the children to him.
Ruth, described by Mr Stewart as someone ‘who was always there for her family’, quickly became overcome by smoke and flames.
In his claim, Mr Pingree said the smoke alarm failed to sound and that the site’s fire risk assessment was inadequate because it did not consider the flammability of the awning, artificial grass, or materials inside the caravan.
Joel Kendall, barrister for Happy Days Retro Vacations Ltd, said the firm deny the allegations.
He said that Ruth was twice over the drink-drive limit and Mr Pingree was wearing earplugs at the time.
Mr Kendall added that fire safety measures were in place and that there was no requirement for a specific assessment of the items listed by Mr Pingree.
He also said that the smoke alarm was working and Ruth’s alcohol consumption would have ‘significantly impaired’ her reactions and increased the level of noise needed to wake her up.
The defence added that there were several windows that could have been used as escape routes and that one had been used.
Mr Pingree maintains that the failures in fire safety and risk management created a dangerous environment that contributed to Ruth’s death.
She was described by her family as: ‘Someone who had a quality about them that drew you to her with her smile, her laugh, her heart, her vulnerability and her brilliant mind.
‘She was a person who would make you feel loved and valued and appreciated. A one in a million. A person who was always there for her family and friends and utterly devoted to her children.’
A pre-trial hearing will take place at a later date unless the case is settled beforehand.