4 ms·

Great post. And the timing as well for me because we almost lost our home to a fire just a few days ago. Someone bought the 5 acre lot next to our place recentl

by oblib 5y ago

Great post. And the timing as well for me because we almost lost our home to a fire just a few days ago. Someone bought the 5 acre lot next to our place recently and about a month ago they hired a guy with bulldozer who's been knocking down almost every tree and all the brush and piling it up and burning it, and then leaving the fire unattended all night and on the weekends. It burned for three weeks before it spread to our place and it was pure luck that one of our daughters and a granddaughter took a bag of garbage out just a bit after midnight and saw it burning on our property. It was pretty much inevitable it would do that and pure stupidity on their part, but legal where we live to do that. But there are laws that make it clear you're responsible to keep it under control and liagle for any damage that occurs if the fire crosses your property line. There were seven of us here so we called 911 and then ran outside and started raking leaves and dead fall away from our old wooden barn and chicken coop to create a firebreak. The fire was less than 30 feet from the barn and it would've been no more than 10 minutes at most before it would've caught fire. From there it would have spread fast to our house. When the firefighters showed up they asked us to get out of their way, which of course we did. Then they spent about 4 hours getting it under control. Since then we've had many neighbors and locals reach out and offer help and that's been incredibly heartwarming. The guy who bought that property hasn't contacted us though. He owns a construction company but I'm pretty sure he bought that lot to build a home for himself so it's in his best interest to reach out and apologize, but so far nothing at all.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Considering you (or your insurance company) might have a legal case against them, it would seem to be in the adjacent property owner’s best interest to only communicate via lawyers to limit their potential losses.
- bittercynic 5y ago
  If you're going to be neighbors, I think it's more important to deliver a sincere apology. Then again, from the behavior leading up to this it doesn't sound like the new owner cares too much about positive relationships with neighbors.
  - akiselev 5y ago
    Some Canadian provinces [1] and US states are beginning to adopt laws that apologies don't constitute an admission of liability. Hopefully, these catch on - it's ridiculous that we have to be so guarded about basic human decency because of the threat of litigation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Act,_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Act,_2009
- scottlamb 5y ago
  > Considering you (or your insurance company) might have a legal case against them, it would seem to be in the adjacent property owner’s best interest to only communicate via lawyers to limit their potential losses. This line of thought seems common, but I think it's incorrect as well as immoral. Personally, I'd be far more likely to be lenient on someone who sincerely apologized. When someone doesn't admit fault, I'd be more likely to use the legal system to declare them at fault and seek the maximum damages. I don't think I'm alone. There have been studies on this, mostly in the context of medical mistakes. https://www.calbarjournal.com/July2010/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx https://www.calbarjournal.com/July2010/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    It depends what the expected value of the loss is. Based on the story above, I assume they are looking at a minimum of 6 figures, possibly even 7 figures. At that point, it could be about livelihoods, and the risk tolerances get much smaller. If I am the person whose house was burned down, even with an apology, I am not going to be lenient on replacing what I lost, which is at least 6 figures worth. If the insurance company is involved, they are definitely not going to care about apologies, just getting all of their costs covered. Edit: ignore everything I wrote. I thought the OP had lost their home due to the neighbor burning stuff on their land. I lazily missed the word “almost”, in which case, since there are no large damages for the negligent neighbor to worry about, I agree that an apology is at least warranted.
    - MikeTheGreat 5y ago
      I think I'm missing something - the story above is about how the neighbor's contractor didn't control their fires so the author's family had to rake leaves in the middle of the night to avoid their house burning down, yes? At this point it seems like there's no "real" damage done so the person who's responsible for the fire couldn't be sued for anything. My understanding is that the neighbors et al expressed support because they all understand how close to disaster this was, not because there was a disaster. (Having said all that - the neighbor & the contractor are both a-holes for not being responsible and then not apologizing afterwards.)
- oblib 5y ago
  Here's a link to a post the Fire Dept put on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CTCFirePD/posts/4787245711356321 https://www.facebook.com/CTCFirePD/posts/4787245711356321
MikeTheGreat 5y ago
First, F that guy and his contractor too. They're both a-holes for being so irresponsible with the fires. That said - I do wonder if the future neighbor is even aware that something happened. If it's an empty lot (i.e., the future neighbor isn't living there now) and the neighbor doesn't visit regularly it might be possible that the person just doesn't know. This is definitely an inauspicious start to your relationship with the future neighbor but hopefully the person will turn out better once they actually live there.
watersb 5y ago
I'm glad no one was hurt. This time. Willful risk of life, to say nothing of the property damage and the trespass of piling burning refuse on your property (over the property line)... I would be furious. I see a number of comments here that basically say, "No harm, no foul". I don't understand this attitude. There are a number of regulations that can establish the right of a property owner to be liable for risk of harm to another. One instance I can think of is a tree or structure is at legitimate, immediate risk of falling over onto your property. Wildfire ordinances in rural areas -- out here, you need a permit for a burn like that, which could be revoked after an incident like this. If you have cause to believe that you see an impaired driver, you don't have to wait for them to hit your car. Or run over your dog in the front yard. This is nuts.

by oblib 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Considering you (or your insurance company) might have a legal case against them, it would seem to be in the adjacent property owner’s best interest to only communicate via lawyers to limit their potential losses.

bittercynic 5y ago
If you're going to be neighbors, I think it's more important to deliver a sincere apology. Then again, from the behavior leading up to this it doesn't sound like the new owner cares too much about positive relationships with neighbors.
- akiselev 5y ago
  Some Canadian provinces [1] and US states are beginning to adopt laws that apologies don't constitute an admission of liability. Hopefully, these catch on - it's ridiculous that we have to be so guarded about basic human decency because of the threat of litigation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Act,_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Act,_2009
scottlamb 5y ago
> Considering you (or your insurance company) might have a legal case against them, it would seem to be in the adjacent property owner’s best interest to only communicate via lawyers to limit their potential losses. This line of thought seems common, but I think it's incorrect as well as immoral. Personally, I'd be far more likely to be lenient on someone who sincerely apologized. When someone doesn't admit fault, I'd be more likely to use the legal system to declare them at fault and seek the maximum damages. I don't think I'm alone. There have been studies on this, mostly in the context of medical mistakes. https://www.calbarjournal.com/July2010/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx https://www.calbarjournal.com/July2010/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  It depends what the expected value of the loss is. Based on the story above, I assume they are looking at a minimum of 6 figures, possibly even 7 figures. At that point, it could be about livelihoods, and the risk tolerances get much smaller. If I am the person whose house was burned down, even with an apology, I am not going to be lenient on replacing what I lost, which is at least 6 figures worth. If the insurance company is involved, they are definitely not going to care about apologies, just getting all of their costs covered. Edit: ignore everything I wrote. I thought the OP had lost their home due to the neighbor burning stuff on their land. I lazily missed the word “almost”, in which case, since there are no large damages for the negligent neighbor to worry about, I agree that an apology is at least warranted.
  - MikeTheGreat 5y ago
    I think I'm missing something - the story above is about how the neighbor's contractor didn't control their fires so the author's family had to rake leaves in the middle of the night to avoid their house burning down, yes? At this point it seems like there's no "real" damage done so the person who's responsible for the fire couldn't be sued for anything. My understanding is that the neighbors et al expressed support because they all understand how close to disaster this was, not because there was a disaster. (Having said all that - the neighbor & the contractor are both a-holes for not being responsible and then not apologizing afterwards.)
oblib 5y ago
Here's a link to a post the Fire Dept put on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CTCFirePD/posts/4787245711356321 https://www.facebook.com/CTCFirePD/posts/4787245711356321

MikeTheGreat 5y ago

First, F that guy and his contractor too. They're both a-holes for being so irresponsible with the fires. That said - I do wonder if the future neighbor is even aware that something happened. If it's an empty lot (i.e., the future neighbor isn't living there now) and the neighbor doesn't visit regularly it might be possible that the person just doesn't know. This is definitely an inauspicious start to your relationship with the future neighbor but hopefully the person will turn out better once they actually live there.

watersb 5y ago

I'm glad no one was hurt. This time. Willful risk of life, to say nothing of the property damage and the trespass of piling burning refuse on your property (over the property line)... I would be furious. I see a number of comments here that basically say, "No harm, no foul". I don't understand this attitude. There are a number of regulations that can establish the right of a property owner to be liable for risk of harm to another. One instance I can think of is a tree or structure is at legitimate, immediate risk of falling over onto your property. Wildfire ordinances in rural areas -- out here, you need a permit for a burn like that, which could be revoked after an incident like this. If you have cause to believe that you see an impaired driver, you don't have to wait for them to hit your car. Or run over your dog in the front yard. This is nuts.