4 ms·

> 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 c

> 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.)
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Big oops by me! Sorry, I misread the original comment as “lost our home” and missed “almost lost our home”.
  - oblib 5y ago
    That's spot on. We have some old fence post made from cedar that burned up and probably between a 1/3 - 1/2 and acre of the forest floor that's burned, but that will recover. More than anything this has been stressful, and not just for us. All of our neighbors have been stressed by this as well. They all know it's just a matter of which way the wind is blowing and how hard.
- scottlamb 5y ago
  The studies of medical mistakes included cases where someone actually died or was crippled for life. So it doesn't make sense to me to think this applies only to minor incidents. My opinion: when someone sues for damages, they're looking not only to offset the harm they've suffered but also to ensure the same thing doesn't happen again. The first part depends on their circumstances—they may desperately need that money now. The second part may be satisfied entirely by a sincere apology, or the lack of an apology may underscore the importance of punitive damages.
Spooky23 5y ago
If the party suffering harm is insured, it doesn’t really matter because the insurance company will do whatever it can to recover it’s loss.
mindslight 5y ago
One of the hard and fast rules of open fires, regardless of anything the law says, is that you make sure it is completely out before leaving. It would seem that this guy, or at the very least his contractor, is a straight up asshole. I would have called the fire department the very first day they left it unattended. And speaking to the legal situation, I would be shocked if actual firefighters gave a pass to that level of irresponsibility.
dillondoyle 5y ago
It's not always up to you. Insurance companies suck from our perspective. To them it's $ and they will do whatever they can to save it by not paying out or get it by being litigious.

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.)
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Big oops by me! Sorry, I misread the original comment as “lost our home” and missed “almost lost our home”.
- oblib 5y ago
  That's spot on. We have some old fence post made from cedar that burned up and probably between a 1/3 - 1/2 and acre of the forest floor that's burned, but that will recover. More than anything this has been stressful, and not just for us. All of our neighbors have been stressed by this as well. They all know it's just a matter of which way the wind is blowing and how hard.
scottlamb 5y ago
The studies of medical mistakes included cases where someone actually died or was crippled for life. So it doesn't make sense to me to think this applies only to minor incidents. My opinion: when someone sues for damages, they're looking not only to offset the harm they've suffered but also to ensure the same thing doesn't happen again. The first part depends on their circumstances—they may desperately need that money now. The second part may be satisfied entirely by a sincere apology, or the lack of an apology may underscore the importance of punitive damages.

Spooky23 5y ago

If the party suffering harm is insured, it doesn’t really matter because the insurance company will do whatever it can to recover it’s loss.

mindslight 5y ago

One of the hard and fast rules of open fires, regardless of anything the law says, is that you make sure it is completely out before leaving. It would seem that this guy, or at the very least his contractor, is a straight up asshole. I would have called the fire department the very first day they left it unattended. And speaking to the legal situation, I would be shocked if actual firefighters gave a pass to that level of irresponsibility.

dillondoyle 5y ago

It's not always up to you. Insurance companies suck from our perspective. To them it's $ and they will do whatever they can to save it by not paying out or get it by being litigious.