Martinez v. Cast, LLC
2025 COA 32
Colo. Ct. App.2025Background
- The case arises from a fire in a Durango, Colorado, rental property where two minor children were injured while staying there in 2017.
- The plaintiffs (the children's father representing them) sued Cast, LLC (owner), Caroni Adams, Inc. (property manager), and Carolyn Caroni Adams under the Colorado Premises Liability Act, alleging insufficient smoke alarm compliance.
- The main factual dispute was whether the unit contained the required number of operational smoke alarms; most testimony indicated only one smoke alarm was present, installed at construction and long past its recommended lifespan.
- The trial court instructed the jury using requirements from the 2003 International Fire Code (IFC), not the code in effect at the time of the fire (2012 IFC), and the jury awarded the children over $2.4 million in damages.
- Defendants appealed, arguing that the wrong fire code standard was applied and contesting the finding that Ms. Adams qualifies as a landowner under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which fire safety ordinance applies (timing)? | 2003 IFC applies as lease was signed then; dangerous condition existed in 2014 | The 2012 IFC in effect at the time of injury controls | 2012 IFC applies—standard is set at time of injury, not construction or lease execution |
| Scope of 2012 IFC exception for smoke alarm requirements | 2012 exception only covers previous IFC editions, so unit must meet 2012 standards | 2012 exception covers compliance with any code in effect at construction, including 1976 UBC | 2012 exception is broad: any code at construction suffices if those standards met |
| Status of Ms. Adams/CAI as "landowner" under Act | Ms. Adams/CAI not true landowners, shouldn't be liable | Ms. Adams/CAI as agents/in possession meet standard | Ms. Adams is a landowner because she/CAI had possession/control |
| Attorney fees for appeal | Should be awarded to plaintiffs due to defendants' weak arguments | Arguments had justification, fees unwarranted | No attorney fees awarded; defendants’ appeal had substantial justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Wycoff v. Grace Cmty. Church of Assemblies of God, 251 P.3d 1260 (Colo. App. 2010) (Premises Liability Act provides sole remedy, and defines duties for landowners)
- Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) (Application of relevant ordinance as standard of care evidence in premises liability law)
- Pierson v. Black Canyon Aggregates, Inc., 48 P.3d 1215 (Colo. 2002) (Broad definition of "landowner" for premises liability)
- Jordan v. Panorama Orthopedics & Spine Ctr., PC, 346 P.3d 1035 (Colo. 2015) (Who qualifies as a "landowner" under Colorado law)