Opinion ID: 659721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: leco's duty to provide fire equipment

Text: 15 Leco also argues that the district court erred in finding a duty to provide alternative fire fighting equipment during freezing weather. We disagree. 16 Leco correctly notes that liability cannot exist without a duty and that, although negligence and causation determinations are reviewed for clear error, the existence of a duty is a question of law, reviewed de novo. Vollendorff v. United States, 951 F.2d 215, 217 (9th Cir.1991); Hasbro Indus. v. M/S CONSTANTINE, 705 F.2d 339 (1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1013 (1983). Since federal maritime law is sketchy as to the liability for fire spread, we look to Washington case law and general common law principals. Daigle v. Point Landing, Inc., 616 F.2d 825 (5th Cir.1980). 17 Contrary to Leco's assertions, this case law indicates that, at least under certain circumstances, landowners have a duty to control the spread of a fire on their land, even if they were not negligent in starting the fire. Early common law Washington cases recognize that landowners have a duty to control fires once they became aware of them. Jordon v. Spokane, 186 P. 875, 876 (Wash.1920); Sandberg v. Cavanaugh, 164 P. 200 (Wash.1917). More recent decisions based on statutory liability also recognize a common law duty to take reasonable precautions against fire. Oberg v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 787 P.2d 918, 921 (Wash.1990); Arhnold v. United States, 166 F.Supp. 373 (W.D.Wash.1958). A landowner has a duty not to create conditions that pose an unreasonable risk of fire. Dealers Serv. and Supply Co. v. St. Louis Nat. Stockyards, 508 N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (Ill.App.1987); Coe v. United States, 502 F.Supp. 881, 885 (D.Ore.1980); B.W. King v. West New York, 230 A.2d 133, 138 (N.J.1967). 18 The scope of this duty varies with the particular circumstances and the risk of fire. Centraal Stikstof Verkoopkantoor v. Pensacola Port Auth., 205 F.Supp. 724, 727 (N.D.Fla.1962). 1 In the present case, Leco was renting residential space to multiple families; it knew these live-aboard tenants used wood burning stoves and that boat fuel is extremely combustible. Moreover, Leco stored large quantities of inflammable materials related to boats on the marina. 2 This situation poses an obvious danger to human life and property and the same policy considerations which justify requiring apartment building owners to install fire alarms, smoke detectors and fire extinguishers justify imposing a duty on Leco. 3 19 Leco argues that a comprehensive statutory scheme regulates marinas and requires certain precautions, which, under their statutory reading, do not include those suggested by the district court. It claims that tenants could not use the fire fighting equipment envisioned by the court, and that it would be dangerous to encourage them to do so. Finally, they note that other marinas in the area also shut off the water during freezing weather and do not supply alternative fire fighting equipment. 20 Balancing these arguments, we agree with the district court that a duty should be imposed. As the plaintiffs point out, Leco's evidence about the custom of other marinas is relevant but not determinative. TJ HOOPER, 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir.1932). Moreover, plaintiffs' witnesses testified that alternative fire fighting equipment can be provided and at least one private marina does so. 4 Finally, under one plausible reading of the relevant statutes, Leco had a statutory as well as common law duty to provide alternative fire fighting equipment. 5 21 Given the policy considerations and the obvious danger to human life posed by fire in a marina where families live on their boats, we affirm the district court's finding of a duty.