Opinion ID: 2621087
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forestry owed the plaintiffs a duty of care as a matter of public policy.

Text: In the absence of a statutory duty of care, a duty may also be imposed by public policy. [19] It is well established that, when the State or a subdivision of the State chooses to conduct firefighting operations, it owes a duty of care to those whose lives and property are threatened by the fire to conduct those operations non-negligently. In Adams v. City of Tenakee Springs , we affirmed a jury verdict finding no negligence on the part of a city fire department. [20] The jury was instructed that once it takes on a responsibility to have a fire fighting service, [the city] must conduct the operation in a non-negligent manner. [21] In City of Fairbanks v. Schaible, we considered a situation in which a woman died in a fire because the City of Fairbanks fire department negligently failed to save her. [22] In Schaible, we found that the City of Fairbanks could be found liable for its negligent firefighting. [23] Therefore, when Forestry chose to take over the firefighting operations in this case, it assumed a duty to conduct those operations non-negligently. It owed this duty of care to those, including the plaintiffs, whose lives and property were threatened by the fire. [24]