Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch.
209 A.3d 158
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- On April 6, 2015 a fire originated in a mulched strip on property owned by Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 and spread to adjacent commercial properties, causing over $1.3 million in damages. Plaintiffs (property owners and their insurers as subrogees) alleged the fire was ignited by a discarded cigarette in the mulch.
- Steamfitters leased classroom space to the Heating, Piping and Refrigeration Training Fund (Training Fund) under an agreement that expired December 31, 2014; the Training Fund continued to use the classrooms into 2015. Steamfitters sought indemnity from the Training Fund.
- Evidence: investigators and experts found hundreds of cigarette butts in the mulch; burn tests showed a cigarette could ignite mulch under the day’s windy conditions; competing expert testimony blamed highly combustible foam insulation stored on the plaintiff’s lot.
- Steamfitters did not have a formal smoking policy, no signs prohibiting smoking, and maintenance of the mulch area was sporadic. A Steamfitters surveillance video potentially relevant to origin was not produced and appeared to have been taped over.
- The circuit court denied Steamfitters’ motion for judgment and granted summary judgment to the Training Fund on indemnity; a jury found for plaintiffs on negligence and awarded damages. Steamfitters appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a commercial landowner owes neighboring property owners a duty to prevent third parties from discarding cigarettes in mulch based on notice of prior smoking | Plaintiffs: property owner has common‑law duty to use reasonable care so activities/conditions on its property do not harm neighbors; evidence showed habitual cigarette disposal into mulch, making condition dangerous and foreseeable | Steamfitters: no special relationship or vicarious responsibility for third parties; the mulch and spent butts are not inherently dangerous; foreseeability alone does not create duty | Duty exists here: owner owes reasonable‑care duty to neighbors; where an otherwise normal condition becomes dangerous because of an ongoing practice and owner knew or should have known, breach is for the jury to decide |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove standard of care and reasonable measures to prevent cigarette discards | Plaintiffs: jurors can use common knowledge to decide reasonable precautions against fire risk from cigarettes in combustible mulch | Steamfitters: standard involves technical/codes issues beyond lay understanding; experts required to establish reasonable measures and costs | Expert testimony not required; the risk and reasonable precautions against cigarette ignition of combustible material are within jurors’ common knowledge |
| Whether a spoliation instruction was warranted for the taped‑over Steamfitters surveillance video | Plaintiffs: failure to preserve potentially relevant video permits adverse inference; jury should consider negligent or intentional spoliation | Steamfitters: plaintiffs previously called the video “useless” and declined a copy; the tape did not directly show origin area, so no predicate for spoliation instruction | Spoliation instruction appropriate; jury could infer negligence or intent from failure to preserve and determine weight; Steamfitters’ challenge to the intentional‑spoliation language not preserved for appeal |
| Whether Training Fund was liable under contract indemnity for claims arising from apprentices’ conduct | Steamfitters: third‑party acts (apprentices) relate to Training Fund’s use/occupancy and business, so indemnity clause applies; possible issues about post‑expiry use | Training Fund: indemnity clause does not clearly cover indemnitee’s own negligence; agreement expired before the fire | Summary judgment for Training Fund affirmed: indemnity clause did not unequivocally cover Steamfitters’ own negligence, so no contractual indemnity for Steamfitters’ liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Frenkil v. Johnson, 175 Md. 592 (1939) (property occupier liable where known dangerous artificial condition on premises risks harm to adjoining public; duty to remove, warn or safeguard)
- Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617 (1986) (factors for determining existence of a duty include foreseeability, closeness of connection, policy considerations, burden on defendant)
- La Belle Epoque, LLC v. Old Europe Antique Manor, 406 Md. 194 (2008) (a person who negligently allows a condition to exist on premises can be liable for harm to neighboring property; jury can decide whether debris constituted a dangerous condition)
- Scully v. Fitzgerald, 843 A.2d 1110 (N.J. 2004) (expert testimony not required where jurors of common judgment can assess whether landlord breached duty by allowing combustible materials near areas where cigarettes were regularly discarded)
- Hesse v. Century Home Components, Inc., 267 Or. 53 (1973) (owner liable where storage of combustible waste created foreseeable fire risk to neighboring properties; jury instruction that duty arises when owner knows or should know condition is likely to spread fire was upheld)