501 P.3d 211
Cal.2021Background:
- In June 2016 the Sherpa Fire, started when Presbyterian employee Charles Cook carried a smoldering log from a malfunctioning cabin fireplace, burned ~7,474 acres in Santa Barbara County.
- CalFire incurred roughly $12.2 million in suppression, investigation, and administrative costs and sued under Health & Safety Code §§ 13009 and 13009.1 to recover those expenses.
- Presbyterian demurred, arguing the statutes do not authorize vicarious liability (respondeat superior) after the 1971 amendment that removed a cross-reference to § 13007 and omitted the phrase “personally or through another.”
- The trial court overruled the demurrer; the Court of Appeal affirmed (rejecting Howell), and the California Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held §§ 13009 and 13009.1 incorporate the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, affirmed the Court of Appeal, and limited its holding to respondeat superior (not all forms of vicarious liability).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CalFire) | Defendant's Argument (Presbyterian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 13009/13009.1 incorporate respondeat superior | Statutes should be read against common-law backdrop; respondeat superior is a background rule that applies | 1971 amendment removed cross-reference and omitted "personally or through another," eliminating respondeat superior | Yes. Court holds statutes incorporate respondeat superior; abrogation requires clear, unequivocal legislative intent which is absent |
| Whether the 1971 amendment eliminated respondeat superior | Amendment aimed to expand and clarify liability (response to Williams), not to abolish vicarious liability | Deletion of cross-reference and phrase shows intent to remove respondeat superior for cost recovery | No. Legislative history and statutory purpose show no clear intent to abrogate respondeat superior; 1971 changes addressed other issues (Williams) |
| Whether other forms of vicarious liability are incorporated | (Implicit) common-law vicarious principles generally apply | 1971 amendment indicates limiting corporate exposure; at least respondeat superior eliminated | Court declines to decide other vicarious theories — holding is limited to respondeat superior due to briefing and facts |
| Whether Howell remains good law to the extent it rejects vicarious liability | Howell was relied on below by Presbyterian | Howell held no vicarious liability in that context | Court disapproves Howell insofar as it conflicts with this holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 202 (Cal. 1991) (describes respondeat superior as deeply rooted in California law)
- Gleason v. Seaboard R.R., 278 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1929) (historic statement of principal liability without personal fault)
- Howell, Dep’t of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell, 18 Cal.App.5th 154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (contrary appellate decision disapproved insofar as inconsistent with this opinion)
- Kinney v. Vaccari, 27 Cal.3d 348 (Cal. 1980) (statutes construed to incorporate respondeat superior)
- Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., 41 Cal.3d 962 (Cal. 1986) (rationales for vicarious liability: deterrence, compensation, risk allocation)
- Southern Pacific Co. v. People? (People v. Southern Pacific Co.), 139 Cal.App.3d 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (discusses 1971 amendment as response to People v. Williams)