First the broken hook is shown that started the fire, but then it is "conceded" that the fire would have happened anyway because of the fallen tree... Am I the

First the broken hook is shown that started the fire, but then it is "conceded" that the fire would have happened anyway because of the fallen tree... Am I the only one who thinks this is highly unlikely? While every uncontrolled fire is one too much, the fires aren't that frequent that 2 independent fire causes would occur this close in both time and space. If the rate of firestart per year per square mile expressed as a probability would be P then the probability of 2 independent firestarts in the same area and same timeframe would be P^2, so if fires are relatively rare this should be an extremely rare event. Either the tree fell first causing a fire, after which the hook lost tensile strength because of heat; or the hook failed first starting a fire somehow collapsing a tree. Either way PG&E should be held responsible both for not cutting trees away a distance of the height of the trees away from the lines, and for failing to replace the worn hooks.