SECTION 1: COMMON LAW SOLUTIONS

With regard to Tort Law (or common law) we often make reference to an "act or omission" that has been committed that is reasonably assumed to have caused the harm or injury that has occurred. Yet we also often do not hold land owners accountable for the "natural conditions" on their land. However, this can be overcome when we create legislative directive that says otherwise (e.g. requiring defensible space and fuels reduction).

Hypothetical Scenario:On October 13, 2020, a fire was caused by a waste hauler who was picking up household trash in the remote area of east San Diego County. The federal standards on these waste fires (or Hot Loads as they are referred to in the industry) is to find a safe location and dump the load - protecting the driver and truck. Unfortunately, this does not turn out well as the incident occurred on a Santa-Ana wind day, with a temperature of 94F, low relative humidity, and wind speeds averaging 21mph, with gusts up to 35mph (at the time of the fire). When firefighters arrived on the scene, they only had two persons on the engine. They focused their attention on the waste fire that was burning, and failed to notice that the fire had spread from the dirt lot (approximately 100x100 feet) to the adjacent weeds and grass. The results were devastating to the local community. The fire ultimately destroyed seventeen homes, a local mini-mart, and some communications and energy infrastructure.

During the investigation, we learned the following: Despite the requirements to maintain defensible space, the neighborhood in question did not conduct any brush clearing, in fact the property had not maintained in over five years. We further learn that the mini-mart was illegally and improperly storing various fuels (e.g. propane, motor oil, and kerosene) approximately 300 feet from the original point of ignition. Investigators determined that the location of this likely contributed to the spread of the fire into the adjacent neighborhood. The County had cited the business in 2019 for hazardous materials storage and CAL FIRE had cited them for non-compliance in maintaining defensible space (it is worth noting that CAL FIRE did not cite the adjacent neighborhood for their own non-compliance of managing vegetation and defensible space).

Economic Analysis:Ultimately, the fire destroyed the mini-mart and homes before being put out, along with 1,200 acres of sensitive habitat. The total economic loss was estimated at $32,000,000. Because this was the only fire in the region at the time, significant resources were deployed to the incident, including 150 firefighters, two dozers, three fixed wing aircraft, and two helicopters. The total cost for suppression was estimated at $865,000. The mini-mart failed to carry the proper insurance, and has since filed for bankruptcy. The waste hauler carries liability insurance with a limit of $25,000,000 (aggregate). The adjacent neighbors who lost their homes (and failed to provide adequate fuels reduction on his property) also had insurance, and generally, their limits are (on average) $750,000.

Based on these facts, please answer the following questions:

1. How would you describe the actions of ALL the parties? More specifically, who would you define as negligent? Did trespass occur? Would you consider any parties "strictly liable?"
2. The fire department will be requesting reimbursement for all of the suppression costs. How would you apportion responsibility for the fire - please explain your reasoning.
3. Does your answer change if I told you that the fire department probably sent twice the amount of resources needed to effectively fight the fire?
4. Does your answer change if I told you that the initial attack (with only two firefighters) lasted for twenty-two minutes, while the County was stripped of nearby resources and had no additional engines to send at that time?