Rayonier Incorporated v. United States Arnhold v. United States

Decision Date28 January 1957
Docket Number47,Nos. 45,s. 45
Citation352 U.S. 315,77 S.Ct. 374,1 L.Ed.2d 354
PartiesRAYONIER INCORPORATED, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America. Arthur A. ARNHOLD et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Lucien F. Marion, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner Rayonier inc.

Mr. William H. Ferguson, Seattle, Wash., for petitioners Arnhold and others.

Mr. George Cochran Doub, Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

In both of these cases petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court in the State of Washington seeking to recover damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671—2680, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671—2680, for losses which they allege were caused by the negligence of employees of the United States in allowing a forest fire to be started on Government land and in failing to act with due care to put this fire out. The complaints in the two cases are substantially the same and in summary make the following allegations. The United States owned certain land in the State of Washington. It permitted a railroad to run trains over a right of way passing through this land. On August 6, 1951, sparks from a railroad engine ignited six fires on the right of way and adjoining land. These fires started in areas where highly inflammable dry grasses, brush, and other materials had been negligently allowed to accumulate by the Government. Shortly after the fires started United States Forest Service personnel appeared and took exclusive direction and control of all fire suppression activities. The Forest Service had entered into an agreement with the State of Washington to protect against and to suppress any fires in an area which included the public lands where these fires started and the petitioners' lands. Petitioners were aware of this contract and relied on the Forest Service to control and put out the fires involved in this case. But as a result of the Forest Service's improper firefighting these fires spread until they became a single fire covering 1,600 acres. By August 11, however, this blaze was under control and was substantially out except for certain spots that continued to burn and smolder until September 20. During the period between August 11 and September 20 there were men, equipment and a plentiful supply of water available to the Forest Service and if these resources had been properly utilized the fire could have been completely extinguished. For several days immediately preceding September 20 there was decreasing humidity accompanied by strong winds. But the Forest Service kept only a few men guarding the fire despite the fact that it was smoldering close to a tinder-dry accumulation of debris, down logs and dead undergrowth. On September 20 the winds blew sparks from the smoldering embers into these inflammable materials and the fire exploded spreading as much as twenty miles in one direction. As it fanned out it destroyed timber, buildings and other property some of which belonged to the petitioners.

The complaints allege that these consequences were caused by the Forest Service's negligence (1) in permitting inflammable materials to accumulate on Government land thereby allowing the fires to start and to spread; (2) in not preventing the railroad from starting the original spot fires; (3) in not properly suppressing the spot fires; and (4) in failing to quench and prevent the spread of the fire when it was under control in the 1,600 acre area. The district judge dismissed the complaints holding that they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He indicated that the facts alleged were sufficient to show actionable negligence on the part of a private person under the laws of Washington, but nevertheless felt compelled to dismiss the complaints because of the following statements by this Court in Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 43, 73 S.Ct. 956, 972, 97 L.Ed. 1427.

'As to the alleged failure in fighting the fire, we think this too without the (Tort Claims) Act. The Act did not create new causes of action where none existed before. '* * * Its effect is to waive immunity from recognized causes of action and was not to visit the Government with novel and unprecedented liabilities.' * * * It did not change the normal rule that an alleged failure or carelessness of public firemen does not create private actionable rights.'

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's disposal of the complaints. 9 Cir., 225 F.2d 642 and 9 Cir., 225 F.2d 650. In agreeing that the United States could not be sued for any carelessness by the Forest Service in fighting the fire, it also relied exclusively on the Dalehite case. It rejected petitioners' other claims of negligence on the ground that Washington law would impose no liability for the misconduct alleged. We hold that the courts below erred in deciding that the United States was immune from liability for any negligence by the Forest Service in fighting the fire.

The Tort Claims Act makes the United States liable (with certain exceptions which are not relevant here) for the negligence of its employees

'* * * in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances * * *.' 28 U.S.C. § 2674, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2674.

It gives the District Courts jurisdiction of all claims against the Government for losses

'* * * caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b).

These provisions, given their plain natural meaning, make the United States liable to petitioners for the Forest Service's negligence in fighting the forest fire if, as alleged in the complaints, Washington law would impose liability on private persons or corporations under similar circumstances.

Nevertheless the Government, relying primarily on the Dalehite case, contends that Congress by the Tort Claims Act did not waive the United States' immunity from liability for the negligence of its employees when they act as public firemen. It argues that the Act only imposes liability on the United States under circumstances where governmental bodies have traditionally been responsible for the misconduct of their employees and that neither the common law nor the law of Washington imposes liability on municipal or other local governments for the negligence of their agents acting in the 'uniquely governmental' capacity of public firemen. But as we recently held in Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, the test established by the Tort Claims Act for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
401 cases
  • Irving v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • August 29, 1996
    ...the acts occurred.'" Dorking Genetics v. United States, 76 F.3d 1261, 1266 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 319, 77 S.Ct. 374, 376-77, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957)) (alteration in Dorking Genetics). The court must, therefore, first look to the law of New Hampshi......
  • Limone v. U.S., Civ. Action No. 02cv10890-NG.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • July 26, 2007
    ...reasoning in the Supreme Court's admonition that the exemptions in the FTCA be strictly construed. See Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 77 S.Ct. 374, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957). The First Circuit in Santiago-Ramirez, not the Eleventh Circuit in Metz, controls my reading of § 2680(h)......
  • Piechowicz v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 29, 1988
    ...Johnson, in holding inapplicable the discretionary function exception, cited in his first decision to Rayonier v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 77 S.Ct. 374, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957), see 275 F.Supp. at 1010, and, in his opinion on remand, to Rayonier, United States v. Muniz, supra, and Cohen v.......
  • Avery v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 15, 1977
    ...71 F.Supp. 813 (S.D.Cal.1947) (on remand from the Supreme Court) did not involve a federal tort claim. Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 77 S.Ct. 374, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957), which the government cites for comparison, states the proper approach on this question: "There is no just......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • INCIDENT TO SERVICE: THE FERES DOCTRINE AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
    • United States
    • Air Force Law Review No. 81, March 2020
    • March 22, 2020
    ...on the basis of military personnel's exclusively federal-law relationship to the government); see also Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 319 (1957) (7-2) (allowing claim alleging negligent firefighting by the United States Forest [131] Johnson, 481 U.S. at 695-96 (Scalia, J., d......
  • Governmental tort liability in Florida; a tangled web.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 2, February 2003
    • February 1, 2003
    ...[section] 768.28. (8) Id. at 1022. (9) Id. (10) Id. at 1019. (11) Id. (12) Id. at 1023. (13) Id. (14) Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315 (1957); Sea Air Shuttle Corp. v. U.S., 112 F.3d 532, 537 (1st Cir. 1997); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. U.S., 3 F.3d 1392, 1396 (10th Cir. 1993);......
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 29 No. 3, September 1999
    • September 22, 1999
    ...Mobilitzation Guide). (123) Id. at 595. (124) Id. at 596 (citing Parsons, 811 F. Supp. at 1420, and Defrees, 738 F. Supp. at 385). (125) 352 U.S. 315 (126) Id. at 317-18. (127) 50 C.F.R. pt. 679 (1998); see also Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish of the ......
  • The policy/operational dichotomy in intra-state tort liability: an example of the ever-continuing transformation of the common law.
    • United States
    • Denver Journal of International Law and Policy Vol. 29 No. 1, December 2000
    • December 22, 2000
    ...(90) Id. at 57-58. (91) See also Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S. Ct. 122 (1955), Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315 (1957), and Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Union Trust Co., 221 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1955), cert. denied United States v. Union Trust Co., 350 U.S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT