Negligence Alleged: Lawsuit Filed After Carbon Monoxide Deaths at Vallejo La Tapatia Market

In the wake of a tragic incident at La Tapatia Market in Vallejo, California, a lawsuit alleging negligence has been filed following the deaths of two employees due to carbon monoxide exposure. This case highlights the critical importance of safety regulations and the potential consequences of neglecting them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 400 Americans die each year from unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning not linked to fires, emphasizing the severity of this often-silent threat.

The Incident at La Tapatia Market

The lawsuit, filed in Napa County Superior Court on October 30, 2025, names Ismael and Ignacio Magallanes, owners of La Tapatia Market, as defendants. The complaint alleges that the owners failed to protect their employees from repeated carbon monoxide exposure at their store located at 601 Broadway St. in Vallejo. The suit further claims that the defendants showed complete indifference to California safety laws designed to prevent carbon monoxide accumulation, allowing illegal sources of carbon monoxide to be installed and present on the premises and failing to properly vent the building.

Employees at the Vallejo La Tapatia Market reportedly began experiencing symptoms such as nausea, headaches, and fainting spells around 2023. Despite these warning signs and management witnessing these symptoms, no action was taken to address the complaints. In one instance, an employee, Brisamar Ramirez Rodriguez, was sent to the emergency room after losing consciousness while on the mezzanine level of the market. She was allegedly never offered workers’ compensation for her injuries.

Tragically, in November 2023, employee Moises Martinez died of carbon monoxide poisoning in the employee bathroom on the mezzanine. Three months later, in February 2024, Raul Contreras Cervantes, 72, also died of carbon monoxide exposure in the same area. Following Contreras Cervantes’ death, an investigation revealed elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the market.

Allegations of Negligence

The lawsuit outlines several instances of alleged negligence on the part of the market owners:

Failure to Install Carbon Monoxide Detectors: The lawsuit claims that the owners failed to install carbon monoxide alarms on the premises, leaving them unaware of the accumulating gas.
Improper Ventilation: The complaint alleges long-running ventilation issues combined with unpermitted equipment allowed carbon monoxide to build up in the Vallejo store’s mezzanine and bathroom.
Unsafe Equipment: The use of unregulated and badly maintained equipment like generators and charcoal grills further added heightened risk of carbon monoxide poisoning due to the buildup of gas and smoke on site.
Improper Construction and Permits: The lawsuit alleges that the owners did not obtain the proper permits for construction and hired incompetent, unlicensed contractors who worked on the walls, venting, HVAC, water heaters, and broiler systems.

Legal Implications and Potential Liability

This case raises important questions about liability in carbon monoxide poisoning incidents. In California, property owners, landlords, and employers have a duty of care to ensure the safety of their premises and protect individuals from foreseeable harm, including carbon monoxide exposure.

Who Can Be Held Liable?

Property Owners and Landlords: They may be held accountable if they neglect to install or maintain functional carbon monoxide detectors or fail to address ventilation issues.
Employers: Employers are responsible for ensuring workplace environments are safe from carbon monoxide exposure.
Manufacturers: Manufacturers could be held responsible if the poisoning resulted from defective products like furnaces or gas stoves.
Contractors: A contractor that improperly installed an appliance.

To successfully pursue a carbon monoxide poisoning lawsuit based on negligence, the following elements must be proven:

Duty of Care: The defendant had a legal obligation to act with reasonable care to prevent carbon monoxide exposure.
Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to uphold their duty of care.
Causation: A direct link exists between the defendant’s breach of duty and the carbon monoxide poisoning.
Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual losses as a result of the carbon monoxide poisoning.

Potential Compensation

Victims of carbon monoxide poisoning may be eligible for various types of compensation, including:

Medical expenses (past and future)
Lost wages
Loss of earning capacity
Pain and suffering
Long-term care costs
Funeral expenses (in wrongful death cases)

Preventing Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A Call to Action

The tragic events at La Tapatia Market serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning and the importance of preventative measures. Here are some steps that property owners, employers, and individuals can take to prevent future incidents:

Install carbon monoxide detectors on every level of the building, especially near sleeping areas.
Ensure proper ventilation for all fuel-burning appliances.
Regularly inspect and maintain appliances, heating systems, and ventilation systems.
Never use generators, charcoal grills, or other fuel-burning equipment indoors or in enclosed spaces.
Be aware of the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning and seek medical attention immediately if you suspect exposure.

Seeking Legal Assistance

If you or a loved one has been affected by carbon monoxide poisoning due to someone else’s negligence, it’s crucial to consult with a qualified personal injury attorney. A skilled attorney can help you understand your legal rights, investigate the circumstances of your exposure, and pursue the compensation you deserve.

The lawsuit against La Tapatia Market underscores the importance of prioritizing safety and holding negligent parties accountable. By taking proactive measures to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning and seeking legal recourse when harm occurs, we can work towards creating safer environments for everyone.