4 ms·

The difficulty people have in understanding that these fires are inevitable is why they won't stop anytime soon. People will die because of our collective inabi

The difficulty people have in understanding that these fires are inevitable is why they won't stop anytime soon. People will die because of our collective inability to accept the ecology of the region. It's more like there's a crowded place with a gun pointed at the middle of the crowd. Every 30m the gun is cocked. 1-10m after that based on a random timer, it fires. If someone trips and accidentally pulls the trigger after 32m in are they liable? Maybe, but only in the smallest way. The actual problem is the gun or the people walking in front of it. It's wrong to use the word "may" for these fires. These areas have evolved to burn and will do so unless we shrink wrap each plant. Humans put the gun there, we started burning which gave rise to an ecosystem that thrived on burning and encouraged more. Then, we settled that area en masse.

will_brown 8y ago
Whether or not a fire is inevitable has nothing to do with liability for starting a fire. If a poorly maintained utility truck didn’t start the fire...maybe eventually there would have been controlled burns/fires that ultimately prevented the damages that resulted from this fire. Or maybe, as you say the forest inevitably catches on fire from a natural act (act of god - a legal term of art) and forest fire burns in a less populated area and no damage is caused to people/homes...or maybe lightning starts the same fire in the same location and causes the same damages, well even then insurance exists to cover that, but otherwise there wouldn’t be liability the same as someone negligently/intentionally setting the fire. Fires can legally be acts of god, same as the law might treat a hurricane or tornado...but unlike the later humans can’t (at least not yet) cause them intentionally or negligently, obviously fires are different as they canso liability (criminal and/or civil) is appropriate for fires started intentionally or negligently.
twtw 8y ago
What if that person trips because they left all kinds of crap on the floor where they needed to walk? If the "accident" could have been averted by making a reasonable effort to maintain equipment and the surrounding area, then it seems like there should be some liability. Whether that is the case, I don't know.

will_brown 8y ago

Whether or not a fire is inevitable has nothing to do with liability for starting a fire. If a poorly maintained utility truck didn’t start the fire...maybe eventually there would have been controlled burns/fires that ultimately prevented the damages that resulted from this fire. Or maybe, as you say the forest inevitably catches on fire from a natural act (act of god - a legal term of art) and forest fire burns in a less populated area and no damage is caused to people/homes...or maybe lightning starts the same fire in the same location and causes the same damages, well even then insurance exists to cover that, but otherwise there wouldn’t be liability the same as someone negligently/intentionally setting the fire. Fires can legally be acts of god, same as the law might treat a hurricane or tornado...but unlike the later humans can’t (at least not yet) cause them intentionally or negligently, obviously fires are different as they canso liability (criminal and/or civil) is appropriate for fires started intentionally or negligently.

twtw 8y ago

What if that person trips because they left all kinds of crap on the floor where they needed to walk? If the "accident" could have been averted by making a reasonable effort to maintain equipment and the surrounding area, then it seems like there should be some liability. Whether that is the case, I don't know.