Ruling: State not bound to protect property from wildfires

[TexasTowelie]

PHOENIX (AP) — A court ruling in lawsuits stemming from a fire that devastated a rural Arizona community and killed 19 elite firefighters says the state doesn't have a legal duty to protect property from naturally caused wildfires.

In fact, the Arizona Court of Appeals said Thursday, finding that the state's firefighting efforts include a duty to protect private property would require the state to act as an insurer and could cause "perverse incentives" prompting public officials to try to shield the state from liability by simply doing nothing to fight wildfires.

"Such a result is contrary to the overriding needs of the public," Judge Kent Cattani wrote in the ruling by a three-judge panel.

The Court of Appeals ruling upheld a trial judge's dismissal of two suits filed against the state and its forestry division by homeowners whose property was destroyed.

Read more: http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/ruling-state-not-bound-to-protect-property-from-wildfires/article_52c9b506-15a2-11e7-a371-9b7a01c401ed.html

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Whoa!

I wonder how long it will take the state to decide it simply doesn't need to send firefighters out to fight fires.

I have nothing but respect for firefighters. Even more so than cops (and with all sincere respect to police officers here) it seems to me that firefighters put their lives at risk every single day on the job that no one else does. (Except, no doubt, soldiers in a war zone, but I think you will all understand there is a fundamental difference between firefighters and soldiers.) And the elite teams that fight forest fires are a special breed.