California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started a fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the authorities are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.
authorities
Poor guy. If someone had been killed, I suppose he would have been charged with manslaughter.
Can't help but wonder if there's more to the story.
Brigitte
He is being charged for allegedly disregarding the risk of wildfire as he mowed dry grass when temperatures neared 40 C. The fire destroyed 86 homes.
Just exactly at what point does that "risk" begin " Is 40* the magic mark ? - or at 38* would it still be a crime also ? How about 36* ? Let me check my latest mower owners manual to see if there is a warning in there.. Are people not allowed to start their autos with leaves on the ground also ?
I'm thinking that's a stretch also. I can see it if there was a mowing ban, or he removed the spark arrestor, some other direct negligence. Yes it's terrable that a fire burned some much property. But just because he mowed when it was hot outside- give me a break!
(¯`·._.· £ãrrÿ ·._.·´¯)
The risk begins when common sense is tossed out the window.
There may just be a warning in your manual if anyone takes the time to read it, being the manufactures install spark arrestors in the mufflers.
People are allowed to do what ever they want, but shouldn't people accept responsibility if they are stupid about what they do. Do we blame someone else for not telling grown men that it is stupid to mow dry grass in 104 degree temps in parts of the country known for wild fires?
And some murderers get the same years of incarceration---and many get less. Geeezzz.
authorities
"> People are allowed to do what ever they want, but shouldn't people accept
Ok what if it had been a Lawn care co. Would you still say he was stupid?
No I wouldn't say it was stupidity, I would say it is greed for mowing a lawn with dry grass and charging the customer.
If your route has 80 or more customers you have to cut no matter what. Rain,sunshine dry what ever. But I do I agree cutting air is bs. Of course some people have a contract that they have to cut every week no matter what. Im sure this is not the case in this story and Im been foolish. My bad.
I can sympathize with the need for mowing company's to cut no matter what with competition as it is in lawn service. The fact of the matter is if mowing in the rain it take three to four times longer to make the lawn acceptable to the costumer, and your not making any money just paying labor,in fact probably more than you made. I've been in the business over 20 years and I refuse to mow in the rain or blow air. The customer will understand, If not give the headache to your competitor and let him pay the customer to mow their lawn.
God forbid they should make anyone take responsibility for their actions.
I dunno. Maybe the magic mark is when your actions destroy 86 homes. Maybe then you kinda wish you'd been a little more careful, no matter what the temperature.
I think it's likely he'll be convicted, because in California, fires are serious business. I don't think he's going to get 6 years -- maybe if someone were killed, but not just for property damage and for an otherwise law-abiding person. Jail time will be suspended, likely a hefty fine.
Johnny Law is interested, here, in making an impression on other folks. Yes, an example. Anyway, often when they come down swift and hard, they're actually expecting the other person to come downtown for a deal, rather than the lengthy expense and ordeal of a jury trial. The case may depend somewhat on what specific statewide and local fire warnings were in place.
Yeah, he was just dumb. Yeah, it could have been you or me, maybe.
But think of the 86 families with no homes. The criminal case is nothing next to the civil suits.
They won't get anymore than whatever his liability insurance coverage provides.
In other countries they have come to the conclusion, no fire is accidental unless created by lightening. Therefore, anyone doing anything that could result in a fire needs to be responsible enough to prevent the creation and spread of a fire. If a fire starts and you do nothing, you are a criminal, you start a fire and it damages anything, you are liable.
These countries have few 'accidental' fires. Just points out, if you hold people responsible for negligence or ignorance, they tend to do things properly.
wierd,
tom
************* Got a Site? ****************
Amen
Nah. IF his insurer gets everyone to settle, yes, but no jury is required to stay within the limits of somebody's insurance, sheesh! The award would be for actual damages (e.g. medical costs, or in this case, replacement value of homes and possessions) and may include punitive damages as well.
IF he carried excess/umbrella liability, he MIGHT be covered up to the $1M-$5M range. Beyond that, he's on his own, and may be facing bankruptcy.
Yep, that's what I said.
That is a Liberal State for ya. They spend way too much time playing with thier peters and not focusing on task at hand!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.