Any Californian who lived through the 2022 California wildfires can attest to the devastation to property and people caught in the conflagrations. One question raised by fires is to what extent a principal or employer may be liable for the losses caused by fires negligently caused by their agents?

The California Supreme Court recently examined the issue in Presbyterian Camp and Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara (“PCCC”). PCCC arose from a fire inadvertently commenced when Presbyterian Camp and Conference Centers, Inc. (“Centers”) employee, Cook, removed a log from a fireplace at the camp due to a malfunctioning chimney in a cabin that was causing the cabin to fill with smoke. Cook placed the smoldering log in an outdoor firepit where embers lighted dry vegetation surrounding the cabin igniting the 2016 Sherpa Fire that spread rapidly to neighboring properties. The fire a wildfire burned nearly 7,500 acres of land across Santa Barbara County. Federal, state, and local authorities dispatched over 2,000 firefighters to battle the blaze and to protect the people and property it jeopardized. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) spent over $12 million suppressing the fire, investigating the fire’s cause, and pursuing reimbursement for the expenses it incurred in doing so.

CalFire filed a lawsuit against Centers and Cook seeking recovery of CalFire’s fires suppression and investigation costs pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1. Centers demurred, relying on Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (Howell), a 2017 Court of Appeals case, for the proposition that it could not be held liable for a fire indisputably started by Cook and asserting that there was no basis to impose direct liability on the Centers. Centers further asserted CalFire could seek cost recovery only from Cook, the individual employee who carried the smoldering log outside. The trial court overruled the demurrer, distinguishing Howell as having disallowed vicarious liability only where such liability would have been premised upon the actions of independent contractors. The court concluded Howell did not reach the issue of whether vicarious liability could arise out of the actions of employees or agents, and it held that the law did contemplate liability in that context.

Centers petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the Court of Appeal denied. The Court of Appeals expressly disagreed with the Howell majority, adopting instead the position advocated by the Howell dissent. Reasoning that corporations necessarily act through their agents, the court held that sections 13009 and 13009.1 must contemplate vicarious liability.

The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict between the holding in Howell and the holding of the trial court and Court of Appeals in PCCC. After a lengthy analysis of the respondeat superior doctrine, the common law and statutory interpretation of sections 13009 and 13009.1 the Supreme Court concluded:

Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1 allow CalFire to recover the taxpayer dollars it spends on fighting and investigating wildfires that were caused by human negligence. For the reasons set forth above, we hold that sections 13009 and 13009.1 incorporate the common law theory of respondeat superior.

If you are the principal of an agent engaged in potentially dangerous activity in the course and scope of the employment you must take affirmative steps to assure your life savings does not go up in smoke. Consult with a business attorney to structure agreements for the work to ameliorate such risks and to ensure adequate supervision and emergency procedures. Above all, obtain adequate insurance to protect you and your business from the risks attendant to the work.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.