04 Sep Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Fireplace Cause Brain Damage

In the case of Edwards v. Parkinson’s Heating Ltd., 2018 BCSC 593, the Plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed to and suffered injuries from carbon monoxide (“CO”) emissions from their living room fireplace.

In 2007, the Plaintiffs hired a general contractor for the renovation of their home. The heating company was a subcontractor for the mechanical, gas and fireplace work, and they reinstalled the fireplaces.  After the completion of the renovations, the heating company was hired directly by the Plaintiffs to inspect and service the gas fireplaces in February and November, 2009.

The Plaintiffs believed that both the general contractor and the heating company were jointly and severally responsible for the negligent installation of the living room fireplace and that the heating company was negligent for the subsequent servicing of that same fireplace.

The Defendants denied that they were negligent or that the Plaintiffs suffered any CO exposure.  If they had suffered such exposure, the Defendants denied that the Plaintiffs experienced any injury from the exposure.

The Plaintiffs used their fireplaces, including the living room fireplace, as the primary source of heat for the home. On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiffs awoke with severe headaches and they felt unwell over the next several days. On January 4, 2010, they called Terasen Gas and expressed concern about the possibility of a CO leak in their home. They were advised to turn off the gas supply and did so. That same day, Terasen Gas went to the Plaintiffs’ home to test for possible CO emissions. They found that CO was emitting from the living room fireplace near the fireplace venting and immediately “red-tagged” the fireplace gas line. They then properly connected the flue connector to the fireplace to prevent it from separating again.

A week later, a heating company employee arrived at the Plaintiffs’ home to investigate the cause of the CO emissions. They inspected the fireplace and found that the screw designed to secure the draft hood to the spill tube, which vents CO and other exhaust gases from the fireplace up the chimney and out of the house, was missing. The draft hood was back from the spill tube, which caused a gap allowing the CO to vent directly into the Plaintiffs’ home. The heating company employee reconnected the draft hood and replaced the missing screw.

At trial, the Judge found that the CO levels to which the Plaintiffs were exposed between November 13, 2009 and January 4, 2010 were toxic levels. The Judge accepted that level of exposure could have been enough to cause brain damage to the Plaintiffs.

The Judge found that the general contractor owed the Plaintiffs a duty of care with respect to the 2008 reinstallation of the fireplace and that the general contractor did not breach that standard of care.

The Judge found that the heating company owed the Plaintiffs a duty of care with respect to both the 2008 reinstallation and the subsequent servicing of the fireplace. The Judge held that the heating company breached the standard of care with respect to the November 13, 2009 servicing, which exposed the Plaintiffs to CO from that date until January 4, 2010.

The Judge agreed that the CO exposure accelerated hippocampal atrophies in both Plaintiffs’ brains. One Plaintiff’s depression worsened and the other Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, and mood disorders worsened.

The Plaintiffs were awarded non-pecuniary damages in the amounts of $50,000 (wife) and $200,000 (husband).