Court of Special Appeals Holds that Property Owners Have a Duty to Avoid Causing Harm to Neighboring Properties

Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al., 241 Md. App. 94 (2019)

In April 2015, a fire that began on property owned by Steamfitters Local Union No. 602, (“Steamfitters”) spread to neighboring properties. The neighboring properties were owned by Gordon Contractors, Inc. (“Gordon”) and Falco Industries, Inc. (“Falco”). Insurance carriers for Gordon and Falco filed suit against Steamfitters alleging that Steamfitters was liable for their damages because they allowed cigarette butts to start a fire on a strip of mulch. Steamfitters filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that commercial landowners do not owe any duty of care to prevent third parties from discarding cigarettes. The Motion for Summary Judgment was denied, and the case proceeded to trial.

At trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, the fire was ultimately found to be caused by a discarded cigarette butt that landed on a strip of mulch on Steamfitters’ property. Gordon and Falco alleged that an unknown individual discarded a cigarette butt and Steamfitters failed to use reasonable care to prevent a fire, which was a foreseeable risk of discarded cigarettes. Steamfitters’ Corporate Designee testified that there was no cigarette policy, and that a carelessly discarded cigarette could start a fire on the mulch. A fire investigator testified that he found hundreds if not thousands of cigarette butts discarded on the Steamfitters property. A jury entered judgment against Steamfitters for over one million dollars. Steamfitters appealed and argued that the trial court improperly denied its Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (“COSA”) affirmed the judgment and found no error in the trial court’s denial of Steamfitters’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The COSA found that there was “evidence from which the jury could determine that Steamfitters was aware that hundreds of cigarettes had been discarded in the mulch and that this practice put it on notice that a dangerous practice was occurring on its property, specifically the disposal of cigarettes in a combustible substance…. A duty arose because the otherwise normal condition became dangerous by virtue of the practice of persons tossing cigarette butts into the mulch.” Steamfitters, 209 A.3d at 173. The COSA relied on longstanding case law that a property owner owes a duty of reasonable care to the owners and occupants of neighboring properties to avoid causing harm to the neighboring properties.

The dissenting opinion pointed out that the COSA majority opinion risked placing too much liability upon a property owner who has little to no control over third parties, without making anyone safer. The dissent also noted that the previous cigarette butts never started a fire, which should have indicated a lack of risk from the cigarette butts, not a duty to prevent a fire. Notwithstanding the dissent, property owners may be wise to create smoking policies and post warnings around any combustible objects or dried mulch.

-Bryce Ziskind, Associate Attorney