879 F. Supp. 2d 1096
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Moonlight Fire ignited on September 3, 2007, during logging operations involving SPI and Howell's Forest Harvesting crews.
- Plaintiff filed the original complaint on August 31, 2009 and the operative second amended complaint on May 26, 2010, asserting seven causes of action including negligence, negligence per se, trespass by fire, and negligent supervision/hiring.
- SPI and Howell moved for summary judgment on February 29, 2012; plaintiff opposed and defendants replied in April 2012.
- The court denied in part and granted in part the motion, denying summary judgment on several claims while granting it to the extent of strict liability based on 36 C.F.R. § 261.5(c) and limiting double damages to timber-related losses.
- Key disputes include whether § 938.8 was triggered by Crismon’s yarding/ bulldozer activity, whether Howell was SPI’s agent or independent contractor, and whether res ipsa loquitur can apply in a complex fire case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence per se under § 938.8 | § 938.8 was triggered by Crismon’s yarding; failure to inspect caused the fire. | § 938.8 applies only to felling/yarding/loading; Crismon’s act did not trigger it; inspection occurred or was not required. | Genuine dispute of material fact; negligence per se survives summary judgment. |
| Negligent supervision/retained control | SPI controlled Howell’s activities and duties; SPI liable for supervision. | Howell was an independent contractor; no duty to supervise; no proximate causation. | Denied as to negligent supervision; questions remain about SPI's control and notice of prior fires. |
| Common law negligence | Plaintiff asserts general duty of care and SPI/Howell negligence based on control and fire safety failures. | No professional negligence; standard of care not limited to professionals; must rely on lay or expert proof as appropriate. | Denied; issues of standard of care and causation remain for trial. |
| Prima facie negligence under § 4435 | Bulldozer as a device may kindle a fire; operation on extreme fire hazard day was negligent. | § 4435 applies to devices that may kindle a fire; requires proof of negligent maintenance/operation; not automatically triggered by bulldozer use. | Denied; § 3346 applies; defendant bears burden to show non-negligence at trial. |
| Res ipsa loquitur | Res ipsa may apply to fire causation even in complex cases with specific negligence acts proven. | Experts may be needed to determine origin/cause; res ipsa limited when origin and cause are single identifiable acts. | Denied as to precluding res ipsa loquitur; jury to weigh evidence at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. City of Davis, 571 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009) (sham affidavit rule requires clear contradictions to strike)
- Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (caution in applying sham affidavit rule; factual determination needed)
- Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (authentication and admissibility of deposition excerpts on summary judgment)
- McDonald v. Shell Oil Co., 44 Cal.2d 785 (Cal. 1955) (control test for independent contractor status)
- Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. v. Superior Court, 220 Cal.App.3d 864 (Cal. App. 1990) (right to control as key factor in agency analysis)
- Gould v. Madonna, 5 Cal.App.3d 404 (Cal. App. 1970) (double damages under § 3346; timber-specific interpretation)
- Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 442 (Cal. App. 2009) (trespass by fire and § 3346 interplay; timber damages)