Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District
10 Cal. App. 5th 1135
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rebecca Quigley, a Forest Service firefighter on a hotshot crew, slept on a Plumas County Fairgrounds infield at a Forest Service base camp during the 2009 "Silver Fire."
- The base camp included a shower unit serviced by an independent contractor who drove 30,000-lb water trucks onto the infield; the area was not roped or signed as a sleeping area.
- Two NorCal Team 1 members (DelCarlo, Jellison, Barnhart), serving as employees of local fire districts, helped manage the camp; Barnhart inspected the camp and recorded sleeping areas as separated from vehicles.
- While Quigley slept on the infield, a contractor-operated water truck ran over her, causing catastrophic, permanent injuries.
- Quigley sued the fire districts and individual NorCal 1 members for negligence, dangerous condition of public property, and failure-to-warn; defendants moved for nonsuit asserting statutory immunity under Gov. Code § 850.4 and the common-law firefighter’s rule.
- The trial court granted nonsuit; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding § 850.4 immunity applied and had not been waived (court did not need to resolve the firefighter’s rule question).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived § 850.4 immunity by failing to plead it | Quigley: Immunity under § 850.4 is an affirmative defense that must be pled and was waived | Defs: Governmental immunity is jurisdictional and can be raised at any time | Waiver rejected; § 850.4 immunity is jurisdictional and need not be pleaded |
| Whether § 850.4 applies to injuries "resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities" | Quigley: Injury stemmed from a base-camp condition unrelated to ability to fight fires, so § 850.4 shouldn't apply | Defs: Base camp is a firefighting facility; injuries resulted from its condition and are covered | § 850.4 applies; base camp qualifies as a firefighting facility and immunity covers injuries from its condition |
| Whether the statute must be read to immunize only conditions affecting firefighting capability | Quigley: "Condition" must be limited to defects impacting the ability to fight fires | Defs: Plain statutory language and legislative history treat maintenance/conditions as a separate, broad immunity category | Court interprets the statute according to plain meaning and legislative history: immunity for conditions is not limited to effects on firefighting capability |
| Whether plaintiff’s alternative remedies or policy concerns defeat immunity | Quigley: Broad immunity yields unjust results and should not bar recovery here | Defs: Legislature balanced policy; workers’ compensation and other mechanisms exist; statutory immunity reflects legislative choice | Court declines to rewrite statute; policy concerns are for the Legislature; immunity stands (noting many firefighters have workers’ comp remedies, though Quigley — a federal employee — is an unusual exception) |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (discussion of deference in nonsuit review)
- Hampton v. County of San Diego, 62 Cal.4th 340 (overview of Government Claims Act and statutory immunities)
- Razeto v. City of Oakland, 88 Cal.App.3d 349 (holding § 850.4 immunizes injuries from condition of firefighting equipment)
- McMahan’s of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica, 146 Cal.App.3d 683 (contrasting authority that treated § 850.4 as affirmative defense)
- Paterson v. City of Los Angeles, 174 Cal.App.4th 1393 (governmental immunity is jurisdictional and may be raised anytime)
- Varshock v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, 194 Cal.App.4th 635 (interpretation of the separate "injury caused in fighting fires" prong)