In a case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court considered the defendant’s motion for summary judgment addressing whether the plaintiffs’ carbon monoxide injury claims could proceed under theories of ordinary negligence, premises liability or both. The court’s analysis and ruling provide important guidance regarding how courts may characterize claims involving building safety systems. 

The case arose from an incident involving two guests staying at a hotel owned and operated by the defendant. During their stay, the plaintiffs and their dog were found unconscious in their hotel room and were transported for emergency medical treatment. Fire department personnel responding to the scene confirmed the presence of carbon monoxide at levels far exceeding what is considered potentially lethal. Police reports identified a faulty thermostat as the apparent source of the carbon monoxide incident. 

The plaintiffs alleged that the exposure required emergency treatment and resulted in permanent brain damage and long-term disability. They contended that the hazardous condition resulted from deficient maintenance, inspection and safety practices at the hotel, including failures to repair and maintain the furnace in compliance with the state mechanical code and to install a carbon monoxide alarm as required by state and county fire codes.  

Based on those allegations, the plaintiffs sought recovery under both ordinary negligence and premises liability theories. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that all alleged wrongdoing arose from a dangerous condition of the premises itself — namely, carbon monoxide generated by the building systems, and therefore must be analyzed exclusively under premises liability principles. 

The court reviewed expert testimony regarding corrosion and rust, discovery evidence concerning maintenance practices, and the defendant’s argument that it was not required to prove regular inspections to establish reasonable care. The court concluded that disagreements over the evidence prevented it from resolving the premises liability claim at the summary-judgment stage. 

Under Michigan law, premises liability applies to injuries arising from dangerous conditions on property owned or controlled by a defendant and is grounded in a property owner’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for lawful visitors. Ordinary negligence, by contrast, concerns negligent conduct or failures to act with reasonable care that are independent of the condition of the land. The court acknowledged that distinguishing between these two theories is not always straightforward; however, it relied on recent decisions involving carbon monoxide exposure, which have consistently treated such claims as sounding in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence. 

The court found no genuine dispute that a malfunctioning thermostat caused the carbon monoxide release; that the defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of the thermostat’s defective condition; and that no carbon monoxide detector was present in the room. While the component failure and lack of notice were treated as established facts, the absence of a detector remained relevant to whether the premises were maintained in a reasonably safe condition under premises-liability principles. 

The court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiffs’ claims were grounded solely in premises liability. It concluded that the alleged failures related to maintenance, inspection and safety measures were inseparable from the condition of the property itself and therefore fell within the scope of the defendant’s duty as a premises owner, rather than constituting separate acts of ordinary negligence. 

The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent it sought dismissal of the plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence claims, but denied summary judgment on the premises liability claim. The court held that genuine issues of material fact (particularly concerning maintenance practices), the absence of carbon monoxide detectors and constructive notice must be resolved by jury. 

The decision is instructive for the monitoring industry because it reinforces that courts may classify injuries arising from building safety systems as premises-based claims rather than standalone negligence actions. This distinction can significantly affect how duties are defined and which parties may bear responsibility, as premises liability duties typically rest with property owners and operators who possess and control the premises. By limiting claims to premises liability where alleged failures are tied to the condition of the property, courts may constrain efforts to broaden liability through ordinary negligence theories based on system-related conditions.

Read More Security & the Law Columns