What Happened: Six months after an executive recruiting agency moved into its new office, employees began experiencing rashes and congestion while at work, problems that eased as soon as they left the building. Dissatisfied with building management’s response to its complaints, the agency moved out and sued the landlord for recission and negligence in failing to maintain the building’s HVAC and ventilation system. The landlord countersued the agency for failure to pay rent.

The case went to trial, during which the agency’s lone medical expert testified that the “something in that environment” caused the employees’ symptoms. The trial court found the landlord liable for negligence and awarded the tenant over $400,000 in damages plus recission. The landlord appealed. 

Ruling: The California appeals court reversed the verdict and ordered a new trial.

Reasoning: The court found that the evidence didn’t support the finding of negligence by the landlord. Specifically, the court explained, the agency didn’t produce the necessary medical expert testimony demonstrating a link between the state of the HVAC system and the symptoms that its employees experienced.

“The source of contaminants in a building, and their capacity to cause medical symptoms, are issues outside common knowledge,” and require expert testimony, the court reasoned. The doctor’s conclusion that “something in that environment” caused the symptoms was “conclusory” and based on “unproven facts” contradicted by subsequent air sampling testing.

As a result, it didn’t constitute substantial evidence supporting the judgment for either negligence or recission. So, the case had to go back down for a new trial.

• Dynamics Search v. Lawrence, 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4630