Hurley v. Port Blakely Tree Farms LP
332 P.3d 469, 182 Wash. App. 753 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Commercial logging, even on steep and potentially unstable slopes, is not an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. Claims for damages resulting from such activities must be evaluated under a negligence standard, which requires proof of a breach of a duty of care.
Facts:
- On January 7, 2009, an unusually heavy rainstorm caused over 1,500 landslides throughout Western Washington.
- Three of these landslides—the Martin Road Slide, the Lunch Creek Slide, and the Rainey Creek Slide—damaged the properties of 14 families in or near Glenoma, Washington.
- Menasha Forest Products Corporation had logged an area associated with the Martin Road Slide in 2001.
- Don Zepp Logging had logged an area associated with the Lunch Creek Slide between January and April 2006.
- The families' homes were located on an "alluvial fan," a landform composed of sediment from historical landslides and debris flows.
- Many other landslides during the same storm event occurred in mature forests that had not been logged for many years.
Procedural Posture:
- Fourteen families (Appellants) filed a complaint against Menasha Forest Products Corporation, Don Zepp Logging (Respondents), and other defendants in the trial court, alleging strict liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass.
- The trial court denied the Appellants' motion for summary judgment on the strict liability claim, effectively dismissing it.
- The trial court then granted the Respondents' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the Appellants' nuisance and trespass claims as duplicative of the negligence claim.
- Subsequently, the trial court granted a separate summary judgment motion from Zepp, dismissing the negligence claim against him.
- The negligence claim against Menasha proceeded to a six-week jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Menasha, finding it was not negligent.
- The Appellants appealed the trial court's summary judgment orders dismissing their strict liability, nuisance, and trespass claims against both Respondents, and the negligence claim against Zepp, to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does commercial logging on steep, unstable slopes above a residential area constitute an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Spearman, C.J.
No, commercial logging on steep, unstable slopes above a residential area does not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. Applying the six-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520, the court concluded that the factors weigh against imposing strict liability. While logging is not a matter of common usage and its community value relative to its danger is debatable (factors favoring strict liability), four other factors weigh against it: 1) the degree of risk is debatable and mitigated by the rural location; 2) the likelihood of great harm is lower in less populated areas; 3) landslide risks have multiple causes, making a fault-based negligence standard more appropriate; and 4) logging is an appropriate and highly regulated activity in rural Washington. Therefore, liability for damages from logging activities must be based on a finding of negligence, not strict liability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standard for liability in Washington's logging industry, firmly rejecting the application of strict liability. By classifying logging as an activity to be judged by negligence principles, the court places a higher burden on plaintiffs, who must now prove fault (a breach of the duty of reasonable care) rather than just causation. The ruling protects a key state industry from the potentially expansive liability that a strict liability standard would impose. It also reinforces the procedural rule that claims for nuisance and trespass that are based on the same facts as a negligence claim will be treated as a single claim for negligence.
