Yes, they can be sued. The court said the builder's and owner's job was to protect people from *any* fire. It doesn't matter if the fire was an accident or started by a criminal. They should have known a fire was a possible danger and made the building safe with proper exits and fire protection.

This judge agreed that the builder and owner had a duty to protect from fire. But, he disagreed about suing the builder. He thought that because the building was built more than 20 years ago, there should be a rule that says the builder can't be sued anymore after so much time has passed, no matter what happened.

This judge also dissented, agreeing completely with Judge Murdock that too much time had passed to sue the original builder.

Yes, builders and landlords always need to make buildings safe from fire, even if someone starts the fire on purpose. The court decided to reconsider the case because the building might not have been safe enough. Also, the people who were hurt can still sue even though the building is old, because they couldn't have sued before they got hurt in the fire.

I disagree with how the court is applying the rule about old buildings. I think this rule is confusing and needs to be clearer. In my opinion, the rule should stop the people from suing because the building is so old.

I agree that buildings should be safe from fire, but I think the rule about how long people have to sue for old buildings is confusing. Other places in America say you start counting time from when the building was built, not from when people got hurt. I think we need to make this rule clearer.

Yes. A builder's and landlord's duty to construct and maintain a building with adequate fire safety features is not dependent on the origin of the fire. The court reasoned that the duty at issue is not the duty to prevent the criminal act of arson, but the duty to provide a reasonably safe building to minimize danger from any fire that might occur. While the criminal act of a third party is generally not foreseeable, the risk of a fire itself is. Therefore, injuries resulting from an inability to escape a fire are a foreseeable result of a failure to install adequate fire-suppression safeguards and escape routes, regardless of the fire's cause. The court also held that the 20-year rule of repose begins when an injury occurs and a cause of action accrues, not from the date of the wrongful act (construction), thus the claim against the builder was not barred.

This opinion concurs with the majority's analysis on the duty issue but dissents on the application of the rule of repose. Justice Murdock agreed that the duty to protect against fire is not negated by arson. However, he argued that the majority misinterprets the rule of repose, which, unlike a statute of limitations, is intended to run from the defendant's wrongful act (the construction) regardless of when an injury accrues. He pointed out that the majority's holding conflates the rule of repose with a statute of limitations, undermining its purpose of providing an absolute end to liability after a long period.

This opinion dissents, expressing full agreement with Justice Murdock's analysis of the rule of repose. The dissent emphasizes the fundamental legal distinction between a statute of limitations, which runs from the accrual of a claim, and a rule of repose, which is meant to provide a definitive end to liability based on the passage of time from the defendant's act.

No, the duty to build and maintain a safe building with adequate fire safety measures does not depend on the cause of the fire. Because the residents demonstrated that Scenic Homes and Russell may have failed to meet this duty, the summary judgment is reversed and remanded. The rule of repose does not bar the residents' claims because they did not have a right to sue until the fire occurred and they sustained injuries. The 20-year period for the rule of repose begins when a claim could have been asserted, which in this case was when the fire occurred. Therefore, the trial court erred in applying the rule of repose to bar the claims against Scenic Homes.

I dissent from the majority's analysis of the rule of repose. There is a fundamental difference between a statute of limitations and a rule of repose. The conflicting and confusing language in our cases dealing with the rule of repose needs clarification. I maintain that the rule of repose should bar the residents' claims, and thus I dissent from the majority's decision to reverse the summary judgment on this issue.

I concur with the majority's decision on the duty to provide fire safety measures but dissent on the application of the rule of repose. Our decisions on when the 20-year rule of repose begins to run are conflicted and confusing. General American jurisprudence recognizes that statutes of repose run from the defendant's wrongful act or omission, not from the accrual of a cause of action. The rule of repose should be based solely on the passage of time from the defendant's act, not from when a claim accrues. The law on this issue is confounded and needs clarification.

Collins v. SCENIC HOMES, INC.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot