State Forester v. Obrist

390 P.2d 333, 237 Or. 63, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 320
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 390 P.2d 333 (State Forester v. Obrist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Forester v. Obrist, 390 P.2d 333, 237 Or. 63, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 320 (Or. 1964).

Opinion

O’CONNELL, J.

Plaintiff brings this statutory action to recover the cost of controlling and extinguishing a forest fire. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on an order •sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the' complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The complaint alleged that in the operation of an •engine.defendant set fire to inflammable grass, stubble and debris and that the fire spread uncontrolled to for.est. land where it continued to burn until extin[65]*65guished by plaintiff. It is alleged that “the defendant accidently or carelessly and negligently originated said fire and permitted and allowed the fire to be communicated to and burn uncontrolled on forest land; that defendant failed and neglected to exert every possible effort to fight and extinguish said fire,” and that as a result of plaintiff’s efforts defendant became indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $1,731.40 which was the cost of controlling and extinguishing the fire.

The demurrer to the complaint was sustained on the ground that defendant was not a member of the class of persons made liable by statute for the cost of controlling and extinguishing a forest fire originating under the circumstances of this case. ORS 477.066 provides as follows:

“The owner, easement holder, operator1 and person in possession of forest land on which a fire exists, or from which it may have spread, or any of them, notwithstanding the origin or subsequent spread thereof on his own or other land, shall make every reasonable effort to control and extinguish such fire immediately when its existence comes to his knowledge, without awaiting instructions from the forester, warden or ranger and shall continue until the fire is extinguished. If the owner, easement holder, operator, or person in possession fails so to do, or if the fire is burning uncontrolled, the forester, or any forest protective agency under contract with the State Board of Forestry for the protection of forest land against fire, [66]*66and within whose protection area the fire exists, shall summarily abate the nuisance thus constituted by controlling and extinguishing the fire.”

Liability for the cost of abating a forest fire upon breach of the duty described in OES 477.066 is set out in OES 477.068.

“(1) In case such owner, easement holder, operator and person in possession, or any of them, shall fail to make the effort required by OES 477.066, or where such owner, easement holder, operator or person in possession is wilful, malicious or negligent in the origin of the fire, the actual cost of controlling or extinguishing the fire shall be recovered from such owner, easement holder, operator or person in possession when necessary by an action prosecuted in the name of the State of Oregon or such forest protective agency or both.
“(2) An itemized statement of the actual costs incurred by the forester or agency, or both, certified to by the forester, shall be accepted as prima facie evidence of such costs in any suit or action authorized by this section.
“(3) The cost in cases covered by OES 477.066 shall constitute a general lien upon the real and personal property of such owner, easement holder, operator or person in possession. A written statement and notice of the lien, containing a description of the property and a statement of the cost, shall be certified under oath by the forester or any warden and filed in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the lands and personal property are situated within six months after extinguishment of the fire, and may be foreclosed by suit in the manner provided by law for foreclosure of liens, for labor and material. The lien provided for in this section shall be inferior to any existing lien.
“(4) Upon request of the forester, the district attorney for the district in which the lands and [67]*67personal property are situated or the Attorney General shall prosecute such action or foreclose the lien in the name of the State of Oregon or such forest protective agency or both. Liens provided for in this section shall cease to exist unless suit for foreclosure is instituted within six months from the date of filing the same.”

The complaint contains no allegation or facts supporting a theory that defendant is an owner, easement holder, operator or person in possession and that as such he is liable under ORS 477.068. When a cause of action rests upon a statutory duty imposed upon a class of persons the complaint must contain facts bringing the defendant within the statutory class.2

However, plaintiff contends that the complaint is sufficient to support recovery for fire-fighting costs under ORS 477.310. That section provides as follows:

“In addition to the penalties provided in ORS 164.050 to 164.070, 166.330, subsection (4) of ORS 476.990 for violation of ORS 476.715, subsections (1) to (5) of ORS 477.993 and subsection (4) of ORS 761.990, the United States, state, county or private owners whose property is injured or destroyed by fires in violation of ORS 164.050 to 164.070, 166.330, 476.715, 477.004, 477.006, 477.010, 477.012, 477.014, 477.062 to 477.068, 477.070, 477.071, 477.152, 477.154, 477.165, 477.182, 477.184, 477.187, 477.188, 477.212 to 477.218, 477.242 to 477.248, 477.304, 477.306, 477.312, 526.010, 526.020 or 761.420 may recover in a civil action double the amount of damages suffered if the fires occurred through wilfulness, malice or negligence. Persons causing fires by violation of any of the provisions of the sections enumerated in this section shall be liable in action for debt to the full amount of all expenses incurred in fighting such fires.”

[68]*68Plaintiff framed its complaint npon the theory that defendant violated ORS 164.060 and 164.070 and that, therefore, ORS 477.310 permits recovery of fire suppression costs.3

If plaintiff’s construction of ORS 477.310 is accepted then anyone

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Beals v. Breeden Bros., Inc.
833 P.2d 348 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
Scovell v. TRK Trans, Inc.
705 P.2d 1144 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1985)
Town of Freetown v. New Bedford Wholesale Tire, Inc.
423 N.E.2d 997 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 P.2d 333, 237 Or. 63, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-forester-v-obrist-or-1964.