State Supreme Court rejects enhanced damages for trees burned in negligent fires

Negligently spread fires aren't covered by a state law that calls for enhanced damages for trees and timber hurt by trespassers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday, ending a 10-year-old case that caught the attention of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

The unanimous opinion affirms the 3rd District Court of Appeal's 2017 decision that Civil Code Section 3346 isn't applicable in the case of trees on a Colusa County property damaged by fire, which spread from an adjacent property where Lambirth Trucking Co. prepared wood for soil enhancers.

"Harmful though the Lambirth fire is, this is not a punitive scheme that fits it," according to the opinion, which does not address damages to trees burned by intentionally set fires.

Written by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, the opinion distinguishes the Lambirth fire from the trespassing activity that justices believe the Legislature aimed to address through 3346, which they said is limited to "intentionally severing or removing timber from another's land without the owner's consent."

"Accidental invasions like the spread of fire do not fit easily into this property-line-focused framework," according to the opinion. "If [the appellant's] interpretation prevailed, it's far from clear why the Legislature would vary damages according to culpability for a property line breach as opposed to the injuring act." Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co., S241825 (Cal. 2020).

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Goodwin H. Liu, Leondra R. Kruger and Joshua P. Groban concurred, as did pro tem Justices Richard M. Aronson of the 4th District Court of Appeal and Kathleen M. Banke of the 1st District Court of Appeal.

Justices Ming W. Chin and Carol A. Corrigan were recused for unspecified reasons,

The appellant, Lambirth neighbor and property owner Vincent Scholes, sued over the 2007 blaze, ultimately filing a third amended complaint that sought enhanced damages under 3346 for a scorched walnut orchard. Colusa County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson granted Lambirth's demurrer without leave to amend. Scholes argued on appeal Section 33456's extended five-year statue of limitations applied to the cause of action for the orchard, but the appellate court said it didn't because the cause of harm was a negligently spread fire.

That ignited the state Supreme Court review, which included oral argument in December by Lambirth's attorney, Lynn A. Garcia, senior counsel at Spinelli, Donald & Nott PC, and Scholes' lawyer, San Diego sole practitioner Martin N. Buchanan.

Horvitz & Levy LLP's Robert H. Wright and Jeremy B. Rosen filed an amicus brief in support of Lambirth on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which has been embroiled in litigation over its alleged its role in deadly wildfires that scorched thousands of acres, including trees. In the amicus, the attorneys detail how the Legislature amended 3346 as well as Health and Safety Code Sections 13007 and 13008 to eliminate a multiplier for fire damage to trees. Scholes "does not address the significance of this legislative history," according to the brief, and instead "argues that the words of that statute should be understood in the abstract and regardless of how they would have been understood when first enacted."

"As we explain, the courts have repeatedly rejected similar arguments that seek to construe legislation without regard to the Legislature's intent," according to the brief.

The justices apparently agreed, with Thursday's opinion referencing "the balance evidently struck when the Legislature replaced treble damages for negligently escaping fires with fire suppression liability. The Legislature can further calibrate this framework if it decides that negligently-caused tree damage deserves even more protection than what other causes of action already provide."