NOTES 



Court Decision Definitely Establishes Town Liability 



The town firewarden system is the foundation for the protective 

 organization in most of the older States in the East. At first it was 

 the original and only organization and, as such, functioned very 

 poorly or not at all. Subsequently, the States have superposed a State 

 district supervisory organization, augmented by lookout and patrol. 

 As thus extended, centralized, and made responsible the organization 

 functions very well. Now and then, however, difficulty is encountered 

 where certain towns persist in shirking their responsibility. A recent 

 decision by the courts in Maine should serve as an object lesson to 

 towns of this sort and generally strengthen the efifectiveness of the 

 whole protective organization. 



In the particular case in question, one of the town selectmen, and 

 who by virtue of this office is a town firewarden, had knowledge of the 

 existence of a forest fire within the town but failed to take the neces- 

 sary action to secure its suppression. As a result, one of the residents 

 of the town suffered considerable damage to his property, brought 

 suit against the town for negligence, and was awarded the verdict. 

 The court in this case declared that "discovery of the existence of such 

 a fire (when generally ravaging property or threatening havoc) by 

 one of the selectmen is equivalent to discovery by all the selectmen 

 within the same jurisdiction." 



"The discovery of which the statute speaks is not limited to direct 

 discovery. The discovery there spoken of means when a selectman, 

 or a forest fire warden, shall have found out, either by evidence or by 

 evidential facts leading to actual knowledge on his part, that there is 

 a ravaging or threatening forest fire ; when he knows, or, what in law 

 and reason is the same thing, when he ought to know, of the existence 

 of that kind of a fire — negligence on his part may impose liability upon 

 his town." 



The court "further found that that warden was guilty of negligence 

 in not foreseeing to reasonable degree the potentiality of the fire that 

 he left smouldering; in not foreshadowing a probable result of its 

 flashing up ; in not reasonably guarding against the danger it could do." 



L. S. M. 

 813 



