Atlas Pallet Corp. v. USS-POSCO Industries CA1/1
A159332
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2021Background:
- USS-POSCO Industries owned a field adjacent to Atlas Pallet with overgrown dry grass, combustible debris, and recurring homeless encampments.
- Atlas alleged Industries deposited or permitted accumulation of combustible material and failed to perform weed abatement despite complaints and sightings by neighbors.
- Prior fires had occurred on Industries’ property: a 2013 encampment-caused fire and a 2016 electrical-arcing fire.
- In August 2018 a trespasser camping on Industries’ land started a grass fire with a lighter that spread to and damaged Atlas’s property.
- Atlas sued Industries for negligence/premises liability, trespass, and nuisance; the trial court sustained Industries’ demurrer without leave to amend.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Atlas’s allegations (combining vegetation/debris, encampments, and prior fires) were minimally sufficient to survive a demurrer and proceed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Industries owed a general duty of care as landowner to prevent fire risk to neighbors | Atlas: Civil Code §1714 duty to exercise reasonable care; should clear debris, mow, abate weeds, and prevent encampments | Industries: No duty because fire was caused by a third-party trespasser; policy limits liability for third-party acts | Court: Duty may arise from possession; given allegations of combustible conditions + prior fires, Atlas met pleading threshold to allege duty and breach |
| Foreseeability/liability for third‑party criminal conduct | Atlas: Prior fires and visible encampments made arson by trespassers reasonably foreseeable | Industries: Liability requires heightened foreseeability for preventing third‑party crime; a single prior incident is insufficient | Court: A lone 2013 trespasser fire was insufficient alone, but combined factual allegations meet the sliding‑scale foreseeability needed to survive demurrer |
| Sufficiency of nuisance claim | Atlas: Fire damage is an unreasonable, substantial interference with use/enjoyment of land | Industries: Nuisance fails absent duty/breach or unreasonable interference | Court: Nuisance adequately pleaded for same reasons negligence/premises liability survived demurrer |
| Sufficiency of trespass claim | Atlas: Fire that spreads from Industries’ land onto Atlas’ land is a trespass (indirect invasion) | Industries: Argued lack of duty/foreseeability and that third‑party start negates liability | Court: Trespass adequately pleaded because fire spread to Atlas’s property and was a substantial factor causing harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (possession can give rise to duty; foreseeability of third‑party conduct relevant)
- Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 30 Cal.3d 358 (landowner duty may arise for natural/artificial conditions that harm neighbors)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (factors for imposing duty: foreseeability, connection, moral blame, prevention, burden, insurance)
- Castaneda v. Olsher, 41 Cal.4th 1205 (single prior violent incident insufficient to show heightened foreseeability of third‑party criminal acts)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (sliding‑scale foreseeability test for third‑party criminal conduct depending on burden of prevention)
- Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal.5th 204 (special‑relationship test for protective duties against third‑party harm; does not displace landowner duties arising from possession)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893 (elements of private nuisance: interference, substantial actual damage, and unreasonableness)
- Levy‑Zentner Co. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 74 Cal.App.3d 762 (landowner may breach duty by failing basic fire‑protection measures and ignoring itinerant activity)