United States of America, and v. Roger Lytle Morehart

Good Law
449 F.2d 1283·1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8330
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 27, 197124992California612 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chambers, J.

Morehart had “signed up” for some agricultural conservation money. He was to clear some of his land of brush. The government would pay him part of his cost.

While clearing the land, Morehart’s mechanical equipment used in the process started a fire. The forest service, with its own forces and the help of a municipal fire department, put out the fire on Morehart’s ranch before it reached the adjoining national forest land. But the forest service acted out of self interest.

A jury found Morehart was negligent and the United States was entitled to recover $9,736.58, its damage or cost in getting the fire put out.

The jury was instructed on a negligence basis that would permit recovery, notwithstanding California fire laws. Evidently relying on the common law and United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, 130 F.2d 308 (4th Cir. 1942), the trial court instructed the jury that:

“A plaintiff whose property has been threatened with fire as a proximate result of á defendant’s negligence is entitled to recover for expenditures made or harm suffered in a reasonable effort to control the spread of the fire to plaintiff’s property.”

Upon this theory the jury found for the United…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.