3 ms·
That will certainly cause insulator failure. And if PG&E can show that's what happened it would certainly help their case that the ignition was not preventable
by eigenvector 8y ago
That will certainly cause insulator failure. And if PG&E can show that's what happened it would certainly help their case that the ignition was not preventable (by the utility).
- turtlegrids 8y agowill it really help their case, though? I thought the whole issue here is that even if not negligent, if a California utility's infrastructure is a cause (not THE cause) and even if not negligent, the utility can and will be held liable for the damages. One random source (Thanks Duckduckgo!): https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-approves-bill-to-limit-utility-liability-for-wildfires-but-not/531483/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-approves-bill-to... > California courts use a "strict liability" interpretation of the doctrine that holds utilities accountable for wildfires caused by their equipment, even if a company is not found negligent.
- eigenvector 8y agoGood point. I was only looking at it from an engineering point of view, not legal. Although the strict liability doctrine is common for environmental offenses because it makes prosecution a lot easier * , it might not make sense to bankrupt PG&E for something they couldn't have actually prevented while still fulfilling their service mandate. * Imagine a company spills 50,000 litres of oil into a river. You don't have to prove what happened or anyone's motivation for doing it, just that the oil was in the river and it came from their facility.