Liability for fire started by guest's cigarette; also, was it negligence?

[Mimesis]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

I had a house fire recently at a rental property I was living at, resulting in something like $200k worth of damage. I did not have renter's insurance (but I do now!). From what I have heard, the fire investigator believes the cause was a guest's cigarette butt (I don't smoke) that had been incompletely extinguished in a flower pot, and caught the pot on fire. In conversations immediately following the fire, everything I heard sounded positive for the whole thing to be written off as an accident. However, I got a scary letter the other day from my landlord's insurance company, stating that their investigation so far indicates I may be liable due to negligence. They want to talk to me before they conclude the investigation.

My questions:
1. Am I definitely liable for the actions (including negligence) of my guests? If the guest in question is willing to explicitly assume liability, can I be relieved of it myself?
2. Was it actually negligent to extinguish a cigarette in a flower pot? It's an easy mistake to make, to think that this is safe, being ignorant of the fact that bits of dry plant matter could smolder and be sufficient to ignite a blaze in a pot of dirt. Since the fire I've heard multiple stories from people about this happening, but it still sort of surprises me -- we tend to think of dirt as not being flammable. In any case, ignorance is not the same as negligence, is it? Why should this be considered negligence?
3. If the insurance company finds me liable, should I fight it in court?
4. Am I required to talk to the insurance company? Is it a good idea?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

1. Based on your story, yes.
2. Do you really need to ask this question in light of the outcome?
3. You can try. Bankruptcy could be a better plan.
4. Maybe/maybe not.

 

[NYCTeacher]

Was it just a Reservation of Rights letter from the insurance company? Or did they mention council?

 

[CSO286]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

I had a house fire recently at a rental property I was living at, resulting in something like $200k worth of damage. I did not have renter's insurance (but I do now!). From what I have heard, the fire investigator believes the cause was a guest's cigarette butt (I don't smoke) that had been incompletely extinguished in a flower pot, and caught the pot on fire. In conversations immediately following the fire, everything I heard sounded positive for the whole thing to be written off as an accident. However, I got a scary letter the other day from my landlord's insurance company, stating that their investigation so far indicates I may be liable due to negligence. They want to talk to me before they conclude the investigation.

My questions:
1. Am I definitely liable for the actions (including negligence) of my guests? If the guest in question is willing to explicitly assume liability, can I be relieved of it myself?
2. Was it actually negligent to extinguish a cigarette in a flower pot? It's an easy mistake to make, to think that this is safe, being ignorant of the fact that bits of dry plant matter could smolder and be sufficient to ignite a blaze in a pot of dirt. Since the fire I've heard multiple stories from people about this happening, but it still sort of surprises me -- we tend to think of dirt as not being flammable. In any case, ignorance is not the same as negligence, is it? Why should this be considered negligence?
3. If the insurance company finds me liable, should I fight it in court?
4. Am I required to talk to the insurance company? Is it a good idea?

1. Yes.
2. Yes. A flower pot is not an appropriate receptacle in which to discard a cigarette. An ashtray or other labelled container is. There was obviously dry flammable plant matter present.
3. You can try. I doubt you'd win.
4. You should talk to an attorney before talking with their insurance company.

 

[Mimesis]

2. Do you really need to ask this question in light of the outcome?

Yes, because it's kind of the point. Can a reasonable person think that dirt is a fire-safe place to extinguish a cigarette, simply being ignorant of the danger? It does still seem like a bit of a freak accident to me. If a person is ignorant through no fault of their own, and acts reasonably based on what they thought to be true (dirt is not flammable), how is that negligence? Is that not acting as a reasonable person would in that situation, if that situation includes ignorance on this nuance of fire safety?

 

[Eekamouse]

Isn't it reasonable to expect a smoker to have a designated ashtray when he/she lights up? Were they inside your house at the time they were smoking?

 

[Mimesis]

This took place outside, on the back porch.

Oh, I still haven't gotten a clear answer on the second part of question 1 -- can the guest in question voluntarily relieve me of liability?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

A reasonable person is held to the standard that one makes sure the cigarette is properly extinguished, regardless of the method used. Properly, can be as simple as it does not burn down the apartment.

Yes, because it's kind of the point. Can a reasonable person think that dirt is a fire-safe place to extinguish a cigarette, simply being ignorant of the danger? It does still seem like a bit of a freak accident to me. If a person is ignorant through no fault of their own, and acts reasonably based on what they thought to be true (dirt is not flammable), how is that negligence? Is that not acting as a reasonable person would in that situation, if that situation includes ignorance on this nuance of fire safety?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

1. Am I definitely liable for the actions (including negligence) of my guests?

1. Based on your story, yes.

1. Yes.

I'm not aware of any legal theory that requires the tenant to indemnify his guests for the guest's negligence. Is this some weird Oregon thing? Could someone please provide a citation to this?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You are kidding right? Every state has laws written or common, whereby a tenant is responsible for damages caused by themselves and their guests. In case you just had a lapse, here is the Oregon law:
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/90.325

I'm not aware of any legal theory that requires the tenant to indemnify his guests for the guest's negligence. Is this some weird Oregon thing? Could someone please provide a citation to this?

 

[justalayman]

You are kidding right? Every state has laws written or common, whereby a tenant is responsible for damages caused by themselves and their guests. In case you just had a lapse, here is the Oregon law:
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/90.325

care to cite the specific portion of that law that you believe supports your claim? I cannot seem to find it.

Actually, it would be great if you could find such a law for any state.



the OP is likely made liable due to their lease. That probably states the tenant is liable for the actions of their guests but that is a contractual obligation, not based in statute.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Here is a landlord tenant guidebook put together by several state functionaries that outlines the interpretations of law. Refer to page 35.

Renters are required by law (ORS § 90.325) to take reasonable care of their rental units, as well as
common areas such as hallways and outside areas. Renters must act to keep those areas clean and
undamaged. Renters are also responsible for the costs to repair of all damage that results from their
neglect or abuse, and for repair of damage caused by anyone for whom they are responsible, such as
family, guests or pets.

http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/health/documents/rent_right_resource_guide.pdf

 

[justalayman]

Here is a landlord tenant guidebook put together by several state functionaries that outlines the interpretations of law. Refer to page 35.






http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/health/documents/rent_right_resource_guide.pdf

here is the statute you are clinging to:

§ 90.325¹
Tenant duties

(1) The tenant shall:

(a) Use the parts of the premises including the living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and dining room in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended.

(b) Keep all areas of the premises under control of the tenant in every part as clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin, as the condition of the premises permits and to the extent that the tenant is responsible for causing the problem.The tenant shall cooperate to a reasonable extent in assisting the landlord in any reasonable effort to remedy the problem.

(c) Dispose from the dwelling unit all ashes, garbage, rubbish and other waste in a clean, safe and legal manner. With regard to needles, syringes and other infectious waste, as defined in ORS 459.386 (Definitions for ORS 459.386 to 459.405), the tenant may not dispose of these items by placing them in garbage receptacles or in any other place or manner except as authorized by state and local governmental agencies.

(d) Keep all plumbing fixtures in the dwelling unit or used by the tenant as clean as their condition permits.

(e) Use in a reasonable manner all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other facilities and appliances including elevators in the premises.

(f) Test at least once every six months and replace batteries as needed in any smoke alarm, smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm provided by the landlord and notify the landlord in writing of any operating deficiencies.

(g) Behave and require other persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave in a manner that will not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors.

(2) A tenant may not:

(a) Remove or tamper with a smoke alarm, smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm as described in ORS 105.842 (Tampering with carbon monoxide alarm) or 479.300 (Removing or tampering with smoke alarm or smoke detector prohibited).

(b) Deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage, impair or remove any part of the premises or knowingly permit any person to do so. [Formerly 91.775; 1993 c.369 §7; 1995 c.559 §16; 1999 c.307 §21; 1999 c.603 §20; 2009 c.591 §13]

so do an old guy a favor and highlight the section you believe supports your argument/ I am still not seeing it. You have to realize the statement you cited is a bit ambiguous. It says any person the tenant is responsible for. So, for liability to be assigned to the OP, you must first establish the OP is responsible, by law, for his guest. So, show me where the legally assigned responsibility is. If you notice, it states the tenant cannot KNOWINGLY permit any person to negligently destroy....etc.



and I sure hope his guest never kills anybody. I guess the OP could go to prison due to his liability as you point it out.

 

[justalayman]

This took place outside, on the back porch.

Oh, I still haven't gotten a clear answer on the second part of question 1 -- can the guest in question voluntarily relieve me of liability?

I am not seeing liability on your part. Your guest is definitely liable.

They cannot relieve you of liability but they can indemnify you if they choose to though in case you are found liable.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Again, you can act as obtuse and obstructive as you wish. If we cannot rely on Oregon gov't agencies and legal organizations to interpret Oregon law as I referenced, we at least have you who claims to know interpretation of state law much better than they.

here is the statute you are clinging to:




so do an old guy a favor and highlight the section you believe supports your argument/ I am still not seeing it. You have to realize the statement you cited is a bit ambiguous. It says any person the tenant is responsible for. So, for liability to be assigned to the OP, you must first establish the OP is responsible, by law, for his guest. So, show me where the legally assigned responsibility is. If you notice, it states the tenant cannot KNOWINGLY permit any person to negligently destroy....etc.



and I sure hope his guest never kills anybody. I guess the OP could go to prison due to his liability as you point it out.