Summary
This Colorado Court of Appeals opinion determines which version of a local fire safety ordinance applies in a premises liability case involving a fire at a leased dwelling. The court concludes that the ordinance in effect at the time of the plaintiffs' injuries controls, rather than the versions in effect at construction or lease execution. Interpreting the 2012 International Fire Code, the court holds that landowners are exempt from retroactive smoke alarm upgrades if the building already complied with the code at the time of construction. The trial court's judgment is reversed and remanded due to an erroneous jury instruction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Which version of Durango’s fire safety ordinance applies to determine the standard of care in this premises‑liability case?
- Does the 2012 International Fire Code exception in section 1103.8.1 apply to any code that was in effect at the time of construction?
- Is Carolyn Caroni Adams a “landowner” under the Colorado Premises Liability Act?
Holdings
- The ordinance in effect at the time the children were injured (the 2012 edition of the International Fire Code as incorporated into the local ordinance) governs the applicable standard of care.
- Yes; the phrase “code that was in effect at the time of construction” refers to any code—whether an IFC edition or another building code—that required smoke alarms.
- Yes; Ms. Adams qualifies as a landowner because she is an authorized agent of the property manager and the manager possesses the unit.
Key quotations
“We hold that, under section 1103.8.1 of the 2012 edition of the IFC — the applicable edition — landowners are not required to comply with the smoke alarm requirements specified in the 2012 IFC so long as (1) a building code was in effect at the time of construction; (2) such code required smoke alarms; and (3) smoke alarms complying with those requirements were already provided in the dwelling.” (¶6)
“The court erred by instructing the jury on an earlier version of the ordinance than the one in effect at the time the children were injured.” (¶6)
Factual background
In June 2017 a fire destroyed a two‑story townhome in Durango where the plaintiffs’ minor children were staying. The unit had only one smoke alarm, installed at construction in 1979, which the children’s expert testified had exceeded its useful life. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants, as landowners, failed to provide the number of smoke alarms required by the applicable fire safety ordinance.
Procedural history
The district court instructed the jury on an earlier version of the Durango fire code, found the defendants liable, and entered a judgment for the children. The defendants appealed, arguing the incorrect ordinance was used and that Ms. Adams was not a landowner. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a new jury instruction based on the 2012 IFC edition of the fire code.