Opinion ID: 2621087
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forestry Owed the Plaintiffs an Actionable Duty of Care.

Text: A duty of care may arise either from statutory sources or from public policy. [12]
Three possible sources for a statutory duty of care are mentioned by the parties, and each of these will be discussed in turn: (1) AS 41.15.110(a); (2) 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 95.400-.495; and (3) Forestry's internal rules and guidelines.
The plaintiffs claim that Forestry owed the plaintiffs a statutory duty of care to fight the fire non-negligently under AS 41.15.110(a). That statute provides: Uncontrolled spread of fire; leaving fire unattended. (a) A person who knows of a fire or sets a fire on forested land owned, possessed, or controlled by the person, shall exercise due care to prevent the uncontrolled spread of the fire. A person failing to exercise due care which results in spread of the fire and damage to property of another is guilty of a misdemeanor. The plaintiffs claim that Forestry had a statutory duty of care under this statute, because it imposes a duty of care on any person who knows of a fire or sets a fire on forested land controlled by that person. The plaintiffs claim that Forestry controlled the land ravaged by the Miller's Reach Fire by virtue of its control over the firefighting activities undertaken there. Alaska Statute 41.15.110(a) does not create a duty of care on the part of Forestry. The State is explicitly excluded from liability under AS 41.15.110(a) under these circumstances by another statute, AS 41.15.130, which provides that AS 41.15.110 does not apply to the setting of a backfire by State officials who are authorized to suppress fires. [13] The Miller's Reach Fire began as just such a backfire, set by Forestry employees, that escaped and eventually destroyed the plaintiffs' property. Therefore, AS 41.15.110(a) explicitly does not apply to the State under these circumstances, and cannot be the basis for a duty of care.
The plaintiffs do not argue that any administrative regulations create a duty of care; however, Forestry raises the possibility that 11 AAC 95.400.495 could do so. This section of the Alaska Administrative Code, entitled Forest Fire Protection, contains various regulations concerning fire protection and the responsibilities of the State Department of Natural Resources. However, none of the provisions in this section can reasonably be construed to create a duty of care for Forestry. Instead, these regulations concern the procedure for granting burning permits for permitted burns, [14] the Department's authority to close lands prone to fire on an emergency basis, [15] the Department's responsibility to comply with state environmental regulations, [16] and requirements for saw equipment used in forestry operations. [17]
The plaintiffs do not explicitly argue that a duty of care arises from Forestry's own internal rules and guidelines, although they implicitly do so by arguing that Forestry was negligent because it violated these rules and guidelines. In Estate of Day v. Willis, we held that an internal administrative and training manual used by police did not impose on the police a duty of care towards fleeing suspects. [18] Similarly, in this case Forestry's internal rules and guidelines do not create a duty of care for Forestry.
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]