Update: This story now includes the information on the dismissal of cases against two defendants who were charged with criminal negligence in the carbon monoxide deaths.
On November 2, a federal judge dismissed a negligence claim against Colorado’s Pitkin County that had been filed by relatives of a family of four who died from carbon monoxide poisoning in late November 2008. A day later, a Pitkin County District judge, citing an expired statute of limitations, dismissed cases against two contractors who had been indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide in the poisoning deaths.
The case dismissals put an unexpected, startling end to some of the legal action tied to the incident, although relatives of the deceased family vowed to pursue other legal remedies.
The source of the gas was a leak in a Munchkin boiler, which in 2005 had been installed in an Aspen-area home as part of its snowmelt system. The family members, who lived in Denver, had won a stay at the home through a school-sponsored auction, and timed their stay to coincide with the Thanksgiving holiday.
The building had been inspected by Brian Pawl and Erik Peltonen, who were named in the negligence suit against the county along with its community development department and board of commissioners. In 2006, the county issued a certificate of occupancy for the home, which was not equipped with a carbon monoxide detector at the time the family occupied the house.
Despite the judge’s dismissal of the claim against the county, however, the now-retired Peltonen, along with the subcontractor who installed the boiler, Marlin Brown, had still faced separate jury trials in the coming weeks, each on four counts of criminally negligent homicide pegged to the deaths of Caroline Lofgren, 42, her husband, Parker, 39, and their two children, Owen, 10, and Sophie, 8.
Relatives of the family expressed disappointment at the dismissals.
“These dismissals do not indicate innocence. Four people died,” Massachusetts resident Hildy Feuerbach, the sister of the deceased mother, told the Aspen Times. Feuerbach had flown into Aspen to attend the proceedings and said later that she and other relatives will continue to press on to find out who was responsible for the deaths..
Brown’s trial had been scheduled to begin on November 28 and Peltonen’s was scheduled for December.
Civil claims, dismissal motions
Although the county, Peltonen, and Pawl were dismissed from the one civil negligence claim in federal court, there still are seven other negligence claims in that same lawsuit that must be addressed in the state court. The defendants named in those seven claims include Brown, a construction management firm, an HVAC specialist, the development group that owned the house at the time, and Massachusetts-based Heat Transfer Products, which manufactured Munchkin boilers until January 2011, when the line was discontinued.
In August, attorneys for Peltonen and for Brown had filed motions to dismiss the criminal charges on the grounds that the three-year statute of limitations on the charges had expired, the Aspen Times story noted. And a friend-of-the-court brief by Pitkin County, the city of Aspen, the International Code Council, and the Colorado Municipal League argued that because the county’s implementation of a building code is voluntary, its adoption by the county shielded Peltonen and Brown from criminal liability.
In addition, as the Aspen Times pointed out in a story published on September 30, Peltonen’s attorney had argued that a Pitkin County ordinance in 2004 that included adoption of the 2003 International Building Code, the 2003 International Mechanical Code, and the 2003 International Residential Code also protects county inspectors from civil liability – which, the attorney argued, would also shield them from criminal prosecution.
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
Affordable IR Camera
Reliable Crimp Connectors
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
A Kidde 21007309 Nighthawk carbon monoxide detector. The Aspen-area home where a family of four died from carbon dioxide poisoning in November 2008 had not been equipped with a carbon monoxide detector at the time.
View Comments
Scandalous! And the outrage has nothing to do with the construction details.
Assuming the equipment was used, installed, and maintained as intended, there is no liability for the installers. If they had done something wrong - say, completely failed to vent the heater as insturcted, or as is described in model codes- then there can be exposure to negligence charges and liability claims.
Government officials are, by definition, shielded from personal liability-absent malfeascance. As in, say, taking a bribe.
Likewise, the liability of the manufacturer for defects is pretty well defined by the Uniform Commerce Code.
Naturally, it is of little relevance what codes / laws are adopted elsewhere. The local governemnt IS the "authority having jurisdiction," and only their opinion counts - not that of some private groupe that claims to write a 'model code.'
Finally, CO detectors are still not widely required. While the merits of CO detectors is a topic for another day, you can't criticise someone for not following a rule that doesn't exist.
These are the reasons that I say the lawsuit has nothing to do with the liabilities of the parties. On the face of it, there is no such liability, and the suit dererved immediate dismissal. This over-reaching by the plaintiff smacks of abuse of the legal process; unfortunately, our system is loathe to punish such abuse.
Thus, the abuse continues. It's all about someone thinking that they're so special that the rules for 'ordinary' folks don't apply .... and about the desire to dip into the 'deep pockets' of the insurers- and voters.
Where we see tragedy, the plaintiffs see opportunity. They are playing the lawsuit lottery, hoping to get infront of an emotional, ignorant jury that will hand them a pot of gold.