Martinez v. Cast, LLC.
2025 COA 32. No. 23CA1909. Landlords and Tenants—Colorado Premises Liability Act—Local Ordinances—International Fire Code—Smoke Alarms—Landowner.
March 20, 2025
Grisela (mother) and her minor children (the children) were staying at the Tercero Townhomes in Durango in a two-story residential unit (the unit) that was leased by Grisela’s sister. Fire swept through the unit one night in 2017. Mother and the children could not escape through the bedroom because the flames had reached the bedroom door, so mother pushed the children out the bedroom window before escaping through it herself. The children sustained physical and psychological injuries as a result of the incident. Several other individuals were also asleep in the unit when the fire broke out, and none of those who testified at trial said they heard a smoke alarm in the unit that night. Martinez (father), as the children’s father and next friend, sued Cast, LLC, which owned the townhomes at the time of the fire, and related parties (collectively, the Adams parties) under the Colorado Premises Liability Act (the Act) to recover damages for the children’s injuries. The complaint alleged that the Adams parties were liable to the children under the Act because the unit lacked the required number of operational smoke alarms. The case proceeded to trial, and the court instructed the jury that a Durango ordinance in effect when the fire occurred required that “occupancies” such as the unit be furnished with four smoke alarms. A jury found the Adams parties liable for the children’s injuries. The court entered a judgment in favor of the children, and against the Adams parties, jointly and severally, for $2,483,317.16.
On appeal, the Adams parties collectively contended that the court instructed the jury on the incorrect standard of care by providing it with a version of the Durango fire code that required a greater number of smoke alarms than were installed in the unit. The Durango City Council (city council) has adopted as an ordinance various editions of the International Fire Code. The ordinance has been amended at least twice since the unit’s construction, so the applicable ordinance could be the one in effect at the time of construction, the one in effect when the landowner leased the subject premises to the tenant, or the one in effect when the children were injured. The court of appeals concluded that, under the facts of this case, the applicable ordinance is the one in effect at the time the children were injured. Under this version, landowners are not required to comply with the IFC smoke alarm requirements where (1) a building code was in effect at the time of construction; (2) that code required smoke alarms; and (3) smoke alarms complying with those requirements were already provided in the dwelling. The trial court thus erred by instructing the jury on an earlier version of the ordinance than the one in effect at the time the children were injured, and the error was not harmless.
The court also determined that defendant Adams had a sufficient possessory interest in the unit to qualify as a landowner under the Act because (1) she was the property manager’s authorized agent and (2) the property manager was in possession of the unit within the meaning of the Act.
The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.