Court of Appeals rules against Carlton Complex plaintiffs

SP0KANE – The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division Three on Tuesday, March 17, upheld an earlier court decision denying landowner claims against the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) resulting from the 2014 Carlton Complex wildfire.
A three-judge panel comprised of Appellate Judges Rebecca Pennell, Kevin Korsmo and Laurel Siddoway cited a revision to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) passed by the 53rd Legislature in April 1993 as the basis for the panel’s decision. The new section, RCW 76.04.016, clarified and strengthen DNR’s role relating to land ownership and firefighting, specifying the agency’s duties owed to the public. RCW 76.04.016 states:
The department when acting, in good faith, in its statutory capacity as a fire prevention and suppression agency, is carrying out duties owed to the public in general and not to any individual person or class of persons separate and apart from the public. Nothing contained in this title, including but not limited to any provision1 dealing with payment or collection of forest protection or fire suppression assessments, may be construed to evidence a legislative intent that the duty to prevent and suppress forest fires is owed to any individual person or class of persons separate and apart from the public in general. This section does not alter the department’s duties and responsibilities as a landowner.
Legislators revised the RCW in question at the suggestion of the Washington Supreme Court following a 1990 case, Oberg v. Department of Natural Resources, wherein the court upheld a $2.6 million claim against the DNR as a landowner. Commenting on its decision the court stated:
“Perhaps it would be wise and prudent to separate clearly the duties of the DNR as a landowner and as a firefighter.”
Writing for the court in its March 17 decision Appellate Judge Siddoway stated in part:
“At issue is whether claims for relief that the plaintiffs predicate on an alleged breach of DNR’s duties as a landowner, but that in fact depend on duties DNR owes only in its capacity as a fire suppression agency, can survive summary judgment, particularly following enactment of RCW 76.04.016.  We hold they cannot.  We affirm the summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints.”
The Court of Appeals ruling upholds the November 2018 decision by Okanogan County Superior Court Christopher Culp who cited the 1993 ruling also referred to as the public duty doctrine as the basis for his dismissal.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs are expected to appeal the Appeals Court to the Washington State Supreme Court.