You still haven't said whether you are asking as a landlord, tenant, or neither one.
I don't know the law in California. In my state (New Jersey) the landlord/owner must meet certain state and municipal requirements regarding smoke detectors and fire extinguishers for rental units depending on the type of rental unit -- multiple dwelling, less than 3 units, etc. Where fire extinguishers are required, they have to be inspected and "tagged" annually.
Smart landlords include in the lease that the tenants shall replace batteries at their own expense and, if the landlord has to do the battery replacement, there is a $20 to $25 charge per battery replaced by the landlord as "additional rent" when assessed.
You cant be sited its not the owners responsibility because of tenant lifestyle, if you put in a new battery 5 minutes later it could be going off because of cooking at to high a heat. Tenants just remove the batteries and admit it
As an inspector, I suggest to owners of rental properties that they assume responsibility for changing the furnace filter, and that at the same time they verify smoke detector function.
Certainly, very few have taken that, but the ones that have gotten back to me on it have been expressing appreciation for the suggestion.
If the prospective tenants are not willing to have the owner replacing the filter every other month, the owner doesn't need them anyway. Because the owner would be able to see what is being done with the property, instead of being surprised after a tenant has moved out. It puts them in the unit 6 times a year, and they give notice of their planned entry time per landlord-tenant act, which is similar but different for every state and municipality.
Regarding responsibility for fire extinguishers, I suggest checking with the local non-emergency fire dept. number.
If we have to notify the owner of a smoke detector not in good function, even if it's just got a dead or missing battery, it has to be replaced with a 10-year unit, non-tamperable.
So it continues to be to the owner's advantage to see that the detector is in place and functional.
And even though 70% of fires start in the kitchen, I suggest against a detector in the kitchen without the "hush" function.
Because the current generation of smoke detectors are not really smoke detectors, even though we still call them that. They are ionization detectors, and will sound off when the toaster is used, with no smoke at all. They tend to do false alarms when they are right outside a bathroom door, too.
BTW, when mount> In California, do you know who is responsible for smoke detector batterie= s
Good post, but I disagree with your statement that all smoke detectors are ionization type. There's quite a few photoelectric detectors as well, which operate by detecting obscuration (that is, particulates) in the air. I'm not very familiar with what's more popular in residential use, but the vast majority of new commercial installations are using photoelectric detectors.
Are you asking, in your situation, before or after the fire?
If after the fire, obviously the responsibility lay with the other party. Therefore the other party is liable for all the damage to you, your family, your possessions, peace of mind, pain, suffering, loss of consortium, your beloved pet, and ongoing psychological stress.
If before the fire, providing smoke detection is in your best interest and you are most responsible for your own well-being.
I think you're right. The only uses I've got for 9v cells. Smoke detector, some alarms at the backs of stores, and a hearing amplifier I use at church.
The "currently available residential units" may be either ionization or photoelectric. Some are both. Both are, for example, quite available from the BORG here. Photoelectrics do not have radioactive sources. (Photoelectric are probably better near a kitchen.)
Not sure about CA laws, but most landlords supply smoke detector batteries. Sure it helps save lives, but the landlord really wants to protect his buildings. If it were me, I'd prefer to take responsibility and change my own battery and retain privacy. Who would get the blame for a smoke-inhalation death--that depends on the judge.
In every case where a hijacked plane is on the ground and the goblins are thought to be armed with explosives, the plane has always been allowed to take off for wherever.
In every case where a hijacked plane is on the ground and the goblins are thought to armed only with firearms, the plane has never been allowed to leave. In many of these cases, the FBI has rushed the plane and sprayed everybody with machine gun fire.
The difference: A shoot out kills people but does only minimal damage to the airplane. Whereas a bomb.... well, there goes $25 million!
So how can this bit of knowledge save your life?
If you're on a hijacked plane, call one of the squints over and say: "Look, I know you're the expert on this sort of thing, but could you at least TELL the authorities you have a bomb? We'd be ever so grateful."
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.