Calif. Supreme Court Affirms Strict Liability Standard For Wildfire Suppression Costs

The California Supreme Court refused to loosen the state’s strict liability standards for wildfires, ruling on Monday that a religious retreat may be held liable for the negligence of an employee.

In a unanimous decision, the high court affirmed rulings by the Santa Barbara Superior Court and 5th District Court of Appeal that allows a lawsuit filed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection against Presbyterian Camp and Conference Centers to proceed. CalFire is seeking reimbursement of $12.2 million for the cost of suppressing the Sherpa Fire, which started on the grounds of the Presbyterian Camp and burned 7,500 acres in 2016.

Lawyers for Presbyterian Camp argued that a 1971 amendment to the state Health and Safety Code eliminated a principle known as respondeat superior when determining liability for fire suppression costs. The doctrine holds that an owner is legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent.

“We do not accept that so subtle a textual change was meant to enact such a massive departure from well-settled law, especially where the legislative history contains no indication of such an intent,” the Supreme Court’s opinion, written by Justice Joshua Paul Groban, says.

Presbyterian Camp owned property in rural Santa Barbara County, called Rancho La Sherpa, that was used to host camps and conferences. A chimney malfunction caused smoke from a fireplace to fill one of the cabins on June 15, 2006. An employee of the camp moved a smoldering log from the fireplace to an outdoor fire pit, dropping burning embers along the way.

The fire spread rapidly through dry vegetation. Presbyterian Camp’s failure to clear vegetation around the cabins, provide smoke detectors or fire extinguishers, and maintain the fireplace contributed to the blaze, according to CalFire’s lawsuit.

Sections 13007 and 13008 of the Health and Safety Code create a civil liability for persons or entities that cause fires. Section 13009 allows CalFire to recover the cost of fire suppression and investigation.

The state legislature amended Section 13009 in 1971, removing references to Sections 13007 and 13008 and creating standalone language that duplicated some of the terms, but not all. Among the deleted language was the phrase “personally or through another” in the section that states how one becomes liable.

Presbyterian Camp argued that the deletion of those words means that CalFire can seek cost recovery only from the employee who carried the smoldering log outside. Its lawyers argued that a panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal recognized this when it ruled in 2017 that property owners cannot be held liable for the actions of independent contractors.

The Santa Barbara County Superior Court, however, refused to grant Presbyterian Camp’s petition for a writ of mandate. Presbyterian appealed, but a different panel of the 5th District appellate court said its opinion that it disagreed with the ruling in 2017. The panel said that corporations necessarily act through their agents and Section 13009 establishes vicarious liability for their actions on the people or corporations that hire them.

“The court explained that such liability is a ‘deeply rooted sentiment’ in California, which it presumed the legislature did not depart from silently,” the Supreme Court’s opinion says.

The high court agreed with that analysis. The opinion said if the legislature had intended to enact such a “massive departure from well-settled law,” there would be some indication in the legislative history. The 1971 changes to the statute were “minor drafting changes,” the court said.

“Such an approach would have been an astonishingly opaque and subtle way to announce a dramatic change,” the opinion says.

About the photo: A DC-10 makes a drop on the east flank of the Sherpa Fire in Santa Barbara County, Calif., Friday, June 17, 2016. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)