Opinion ID: 1443160
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: common law duty as a landowner

Text: Respondent landowners contend that it has long been the common law in Washington that each landowner owes his neighbors a duty to use all reasonable efforts toward preventing the spread of fires on his property. Respondents rely heavily on Arnhold v. United States, 166 F. Supp. 373 (W.D. Wash. 1958), vacated, 284 F.2d 326 (9th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 876 (1961), to support their contention that the State has a duty as a landowner and that such a duty provides a separate basis for liability in this case. However, their reliance on Arnhold is misplaced under the circumstances of this case. In Arnhold, the United States assumed responsibility, for providing fire protection of the timberlands within a protected area, from the State of Washington. The court found that the United States was the owner of considerable lands within this protection area and assumed the fire protection duty as a landowner, rather than merely as a public fire protection agency. Arnhold, 166 F. Supp. at 386. Consequently, the court did not address the duties and liabilities of the government where it acts solely in its capacity as a public fireman. Nor did it discuss the public duty doctrine or the public policies relevant to holding a public fireman liable for the performance of its duties. The court in Arnhold recognized that there may be no duties or liability attending the performance of public fire fighting. Indeed, as the early case law in other jurisdictions reflects, public policy reasons foreclosed the liability of such fire fighting agencies. See State ex rel. Kern v. Arnold, 100 Mont. 346, 49 P.2d 976 (1935); Long v. Birmingham, 161 Ala. 427, 49 So. 881 (1909); Wilcox v. Chicago, 107 Ill. 334 (1883); Brinkmeyer v. Evansville, 29 Ind. 187 (1867). On the ground of public policy, it was stated in Wilcox v. Chicago, supra : If liable for neglect in this case, the city must be held liable for every neglect of that department, and every employe[e] connected with it, when acting within the line of duty. It would subject the city to the opinions of witnesses and jurors whether sufficient dispatch was used in reaching the fire after the alarm was given; whether the employe[e]s had used the requisite skill for its extinguishment; whether a sufficient force had been provided to secure safety; whether the city had provided proper engines and other appliances to answer the demands of the hazards of fire in the city; and many other things might be named that would form the subject of legal controversy. To permit recoveries to be had for all such and other acts would virtually render the city an insurer of every person's property within the limits of its jurisdiction. It would assuredly become too [burdensome] to be borne by the people of any large city, where loss by fire is annually counted by the hundreds of thousands, if not by the millions. When the excitement is over and calm reason assumes its sway, it may appear to many where other methods could have been adopted to stay destruction, that appear plausible as theories, and their utter fallacy can not be demonstrated by any actual test. To allow recoveries for the negligence of the fire department would almost certainly subject property holders to as great, if not greater, [burdens] than are suffered from the damages from fire. Sound public policy would forbid it, if it was not prohibited by authority. Wilcox, at 339-40. In the present case, the evidence demonstrates that DNR was being charged with negligence and that it acted solely in its capacity as a public fireman, and not as a landowner.