"California is one of the only states in the country where the courts have applied inverse condemnation liability to events caused by a privately owned utility's equipment. This means that if a utility's equipment is found to have been a substantial cause of the damage in the event like a wildfire -- even if the utility has followed established inspection and safety rules -- the utility may be liable for property damages and attorneys' fees associated with that event". This doesn't sound foreboding unless you are the utility company, the employees and/or its customers. California, which has some of the most ignorant laws of the land, now say they have the ability to sue the utilities companies for damages caused by the recent wild fires. If an irresponsible state as California was dumb enough to allow all growth of its forests to go unchecked, also based on their own laws, then they too should be held liable. Controlled fires would have helped mitigate the devastation, but the state and its "save the trees" group mentality thought it best to let the forests and fields grow natural, unchecked and without management. Now, more than ever, they have been experiencing major wild fires, destruction of home, property and loss of life. These fires and loss of life could have been mitigated if California (and should under the same principle) can be held liable as they want to hold the utilities liable. An ounce of prevention folks is necessary! If the utility companies are sued, they should file for bankruptcy protection and then flee the state. If it were to happen, it is a guarantee that no other utility company would want to serve the people of California, and rightly so! Ignorance is bliss, but lack of utilities such as heat and AC won't be so blissful!
This morning as I turned on the TV set on my way to make coffee, a national ( CNN:HLN Channel) news segment had apparently earlier asked its viewers to write in and tell them who "they would raise taxes on if they had the ability to do so". I'm paraphrasing now but here is how it was played out: One person wrote in and said, "raise taxes on the big oil companies but do it APPROPRIATELY". This individual's email actually had the word APPROPRIATELY spelled in capital letters. The second individual wrote in and said, "raise taxes on the junk food companies because they make food taste good which forces us to eat it and yet it is bad for us". (They will one day raise prices on Junk Food, mark my words!) Honest, i'm not making this up!!!!! As to the first writer, i'm ASSUMING (I capitalized this word to make a point too) they think raising taxes APPROPRIATELY would not effect the average consumer - ergo, their use of the CAPS! In o...
Comments
Post a Comment