Collins v. Scenic Homes, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2009 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityNegligenceRule of reposeIntervening criminal actsLandlord liabilityfire safetyarson

Facts

Scenic Homes constructed a 12-unit, two-story apartment building known as Hunters Ridge 4022 in 1982 and later sold it. On August 12, 2004, a fire broke out at the building; one resident, April Collins, died, and several other residents were injured. The fire was intentionally set by Henry Rice, who later pleaded guilty to arson. The residents alleged that Scenic Homes failed to construct, and Russell failed to maintain, a reasonably safe apartment building with adequate fire-suppression safeguards and adequate escape routes.

Issue

Whether a builder's and landlord's duty to construct and maintain an apartment building with adequate fire-suppression features and escape routes is negated when the fire was intentionally set by a third party. Whether the residents' claims against the builder were barred by Alabama's 20-year common-law rule of repose.

Rule

A premises owner or builder may have a duty to construct and maintain an apartment building with reasonable fire-safety measures, including fire-suppression safeguards and adequate means of escape, regardless of whether a particular fire was accidentally or intentionally caused; the relevant foreseeability question is whether injury from fire was a foreseeable result of failing to provide such protections. Alabama's 20-year common-law rule of repose bars actions not commenced within 20 years from the time they could have been commenced, and a claim can be commenced only when all essential elements coexist, including a legal injury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Birmingham, Nora Patel rented an apartment in the Red Clay Flats complex, owned by Mason Reed. The building had no working hallway smoke-control system and the bedroom windows were too narrow for an adult to exit. After a stranger intentionally set fire to a dumpster against the building, Nora was injured trying to escape.

If Nora sues Mason for negligent failure to maintain reasonable fire-safety features, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for Mason?

Explanation. The majority distinguished claims alleging a duty to prevent a third party's crime from claims alleging a duty to build or maintain premises to reduce harm from fire however started. The relevant foreseeability inquiry is whether injury from fire is a foreseeable result of lacking adequate suppression safeguards and means of escape. That makes summary judgment improper on the theory that arson alone negates duty. (Derived from Collins v. Scenic Homes, Inc. (n.d.).)