On April 6, 2015, a fire started along a common area of mulch owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (“Steamfitters”), which eventually spread, causing damage to a neighboring property owned by Gordon Contractors, Inc. (“Gordon”) and Falco Industries, Inc. (“Falco”). This area was commonly used by Steamfitters’ apprentices to congregate before their training classes. An investigation into the cause of the fire revealed hundreds of cigarette butts discarded in the mulch.
After filing suit, Gordon
and Falco proceeded on the theory that Steamfitters, as the property owner,
failed to use reasonable care to prevent the foreseeable risk of fire spreading
to nearby properties. Testimony established that Steamfitters’ business
designee, who was responsible for maintenance of the property, was aware that
the apprentices frequently smoked near this common area and had cleaned trash
along the fence two or three times prior to the fire. It was undisputed that
Steamfitters did not issue any smoking policies, and there were no signs
prohibiting smoking on the property. However, Steamfitters argued that it had
no common law duty to the neighboring properties.
Steamfitters moved
for judgment at the end of the Plaintiffs’ case-in chief, at the conclusion of the
defense’s case, and at the end of Plaintiffs’ rebuttal, with the trial judge
denying each motion. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
Plaintiffs, Steamfitters filed a timely appeal.
The Court of
Special Appeals (“COSA”) acknowledged that no Maryland case had previously
addressed this specific issue – “a fire caused by a condition that is not
inherently dangerous, but rather considered to be normal, absent extenuating
circumstances.” Steamfitters Local Union
No. 602 v. Erie Inc. Exch., 241 Md. App. 94, 116 (2019). However, although
the court had no case with a similar set of facts to rely upon, the COSA
recognized that a property owner owes a common law duty of reasonable care, so
as to avoid harm to the owners and occupants of the neighboring property. The
circuit court’s judgment was affirmed by the COSA, and Steamfitters petitioned
for writ of certiorari.
In its brief to the
Court of Appeals, Steamfitters argued that COSA erroneously found a duty based
on foreseeability alone, never truly defined said duty, and with its decision, expanded
premises liability further than anywhere else in the country.
However, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the COSA’s decision, reasoning that for the last 80 years, the
ownership and maintenance of property come with a duty to use reasonable
care so as to not harm neighboring property owners. This was not exclusively
dependent on any one type of activity, but rather after viewing the totality of
the circumstances, there existed a hazardous condition, and the property owner
was on notice of said condition. The Court acknowledged mulch itself is not a dangerous
condition, but went on to state that an otherwise normal condition can become
dangerous when one adds human activity. The Court continued, declaring “it is
certainly a foreseeable consequence of allowing or enabling the constant
littering or disposal of cigarettes along a common boundary between commercial
properties.” Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., No. 40, 2020 Md. LEXIS 347
(July 27, 2020).
While this case was decided on a narrow set of facts, the Court’s decision emphasizes the overarching and long-standing duties that property owners owe to neighbors. One cannot escape a duty to use reasonable care simply by ignoring the care and maintenance of property boundaries. As the Court of Appeals quoted at the beginning of its opinion, “Only you can prevent wildfires.” – Smokey the Bear.
-Kelsey Lear, Law Clerk
