## Facts

- Kenneth Roth leased about 55 acres in Linn County, Oregon to commercially produce grass seed.
- After harvesting, Roth conducted a controlled field burn using a crew, mobile water tanks, and a plowed perimeter firebreak.
- Fire escaped and burned George and Agnes Koos’s adjoining property, causing stipulated damages of $8,017.
- No witness saw the fire cross the boundary, but witnesses attributed the spread to wind or a whirlwind carrying burning material.
- The fire also spread to other nearby properties.
- The Kooses sued on trespass, negligence, and strict liability theories.
- The trial court granted Roth a directed verdict on all theories.

## Issues

1. Whether a farmer conducting field burning is strictly liable for damage when fire escapes to neighboring property without proof of negligence.
2. Whether field burning, as conducted, qualifies as an “abnormally dangerous activity” warranting strict liability under Restatement-based factors rather than negligence-only liability.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the appellate outcome imposing liability on Roth.
- The court held that field burning in these circumstances was an abnormally dangerous activity.
- The court ruled Roth was strictly liable for harm caused by the escape of fire even if he exercised reasonable care.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the strict-liability holding.

## Legal Principles

- One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for resulting harm, even when exercising the utmost care.
- Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is evaluated contextually using factors including: high risk of harm, likelihood of great harm, inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care, common usage, appropriateness to the place, and community value compared to dangerous attributes.
- “Common usage” concerns activities of ordinary life broadly engaged in by the public, not practices common only within a particular industry.
- Unintentional invasions associated with hazardous activities are better analyzed under strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities than by expanding intentional trespass concepts.
- Loss allocation supports placing the costs of unavoidable hazards on those who choose, control, and profit from the activity rather than on neighboring landowners lacking control over the risk.

## Conclusion

The court classified agricultural field burning as abnormally dangerous on these facts and imposed strict liability for the escape of fire onto neighboring land, making proof of negligence unnecessary for recovery.


Koos v. Roth, 652 P.2d 1255 (Or. 1982)