THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 TAG: 9702120463
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: 74 lines
Four years ago, one of the worst fires in Norfolk history flattened the Pretty Lake Village apartment complex in East Ocean View, leaving 75 people homeless.
Now a lawsuit filed by the worst-injured tenant is finally being heard in court.
On Monday, a Circuit Court judge heard arguments in the case of one tenant who was trapped in her second-floor apartment, badly burned and eventually lost a leg.
Patrica Beth Carden is suing the apartment complex's owner, Pretty Lake Village Inc., for $2 million. She claims her apartment did not have a working smoke detector and the complex did not have fire-resistant walls or fire doors.
On Monday, a lawyer for Pretty Lake Village asked the judge to throw out the lawsuit. Judge John E. Clarkson did not rule immediately, but promised to do so soon.
The case is scheduled for trial in April.
No one disputes the cause of the fire. It was set by someone who poured gasoline outside Carden's apartment at 3 a.m. No one was ever prosecuted.
At Monday's hearing, Clarkson wondered aloud how the landlord could be responsible for the criminal act of a third party. ``Some criminal gets a gallon of gas and wants to hurt somebody,'' he said.
Carden's attorney, John W. Hall, said the owner is responsible for ensuring that the building meets state and city codes. In this case, Hall argued, the walls should have held the fire back for one hour but didn't. ``It was a firetrap,'' Hall said.
The judge responded, ``Until some arsonist came along, there wasn't anything wrong with it, was there?''
``The building was built inadequately to protect its occupants from a fire,'' Hall replied.
The owner's attorney, Edward L. Breeden III, argued that the complex was built in 1986 and passed a city building inspection at that time. The owner was given a certificate of occupancy, which means the inspector believed it met the building code, Breeden said. ``There is nothing in the building code Breeden argued. ``That's the reason you have a building official.''
The judge asked Hall, ``Do you think the owner has a continuing obligation to do something further,'' after the building is inspected?
``Yes, sir,'' Hall replied. He said the landlord has a duty to continually inspect the building to ensure it is up to code.
``What, then, is the reason to have a building inspector?'' the judge asked. ``Why do they even do that?''
``Hopefully, they catch it,'' Hall said, referring to building flaws. But if the inspector misses something, Hall added, the landlord is still responsible.
Hall argued that the owner knew the building was inadequate after a fire in 1990. He argued that the owner did not even look in the attic to make sure there were appropriate fire walls after the first fire.
Breeden replied that the building code does not require a building's owner or builder to determine whether it is satisfactory. That is the inspector's job, he said.
A second issue is whether Carden had a working smoke detector in her apartment. The smoke detector in her unit was wired directly into the building's power supply and did not use a battery.
Hall argued that the landlord was negligent for not anticipating that the building would lose power during a fire. That was foreseeable, Hall argued. As a result, he said, Carden's smoke detector didn't work that night.
Breeden countered that the smoke detector was working fine earlier in the day, but that Carden turned it off while she was cooking. He did not say whether the tenant turned it back on.
The judge could throw out the whole case. More likely, Breeden said, if the judge rules against the tenant he will let her amend the lawsuit and the case would be significantly reduced.
KEYWORDS: FIRE LAWSUIT PRETTY LAKE VILLAGE APARTMENT COMPLEX