## Facts

- Terry Barton was an employee of the United States Forest Service assigned to patrol in Colorado’s Pike National Forest.
- While on patrol, Barton burned a personal letter in a fire ring.
- Barton left the area after she believed the letter had burned out.
- Shortly afterward, Barton returned, observed a wildfire, reported it by radio, and attempted to put the fire out.
- The suppression attempt failed, and the fire spread, ultimately burning about 138,000 acres.
- State Farm Fire and Casualty Company paid covered losses to its insureds for fire damage and sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to recover those payments.
- State Farm alleged the United States was liable because Barton, as a federal employee, negligently failed to prevent the fire from damaging insured property.
- The United States contended Barton was acting outside the scope of her employment when she started the fire by burning the letter.
- The United States also argued that, even if Barton was within the scope of employment and negligent, the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception applied because decisions about how to fight a wildfire involved judgment and choice.
- The Forest Service did not have mandatory directives prescribing exactly how an employee must combat a specific forest fire.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States could be liable under the FTCA based on Barton’s conduct, including whether she was acting within the scope of her employment when she burned the letter.
2. Whether the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception barred State Farm’s negligence claim to the extent it challenged Barton’s on-scene decisions about how to respond to and suppress the wildfire, given the absence of mandatory firefighting directives.

## Decision

- The court ruled for the United States on State Farm’s FTCA claim.
- The court concluded the United States was not subject to FTCA liability for Barton’s act of burning a personal letter because it was outside the scope of her federal employment.
- The court further determined that, in any event, claims attacking how Barton fought the wildfire were barred by the FTCA discretionary-function exception because the Forest Service did not impose mandatory, specific directives controlling those firefighting choices.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FTCA, the United States may be liable for a federal employee’s torts only if the employee was acting within the scope of employment under applicable state respondeat superior principles.
- Conduct undertaken for personal reasons, even if occurring during work time or on work patrol, can fall outside the scope of employment and cannot be imputed to the United States for FTCA liability.
- The FTCA discretionary-function exception preserves federal immunity for claims based on discretionary acts or omissions, even if discretion is abused.
- Discretionary-function analysis asks (1) whether a statute, regulation, or policy specifically requires a particular course of action (removing choice), and (2) if not, whether the judgment is the type the exception protects because it is tied to governmental policy considerations.
- When an agency has no mandatory directives dictating exactly how to fight a particular wildfire, on-the-ground suppression decisions ordinarily involve discretionary judgment covered by the exception.

## Conclusion

State Farm’s subrogation claim under the FTCA was rejected because the Forest Service employee’s act of burning a personal letter was outside the scope of federal employment, and, separately, decisions about how to respond to the wildfire were discretionary in the absence of mandatory firefighting instructions, bringing the claim within the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception.


State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States, 2008 WL 5083502 (2008)