Lawsuit Alleges PG&E’s Power Lines Started the Mosquito Fire

	Nadrich Accident Injury Lawyers Accident Injury Lawyers is no longer actively retaining Mosquito Fire victims.

A lawsuit filed in San Francisco County Superior Court on September 21 alleges that PG&E’s power lines ignited the Mosquito Fire on September 6 near OxBow Reservoir in Placer County, CA. 

As of September 26, the Mosquito Fire has burned over 76,000 acres of land, destroyed 78 buildings, and led to over 11,000 evacuations.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include homeowners, business owners, renters, and others “whose property and lives were, literally and figuratively, burned to the ground by the Mosquito Fire,” according to the complaint.

The Mosquito Fire Complaint

The complaint claims that the Mosquito Fire was ignited when PG&E’s electrical equipment contacted the vegetation around it or caused sparks to come into contact with the vegetation around it.

According to a PG&E filing, the United States Forest Service seized a PG&E transmission pole and the equipment attached to it on September 24 as part of its investigation into the Mosquito Fire.

The complaint notes that PG&E sent an incident report to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on September 8. That report noted that PG&E placed caution tape around a PG&E transmission pole’s base and that electrical activity happened close to the time that the fire was reported.

The complaint claims that PG&E, via submission of the report to the CPUC, admitted that its power lines may have caused the Mosquito Fire.

The complaint claims that the Mosquito Fire was ignited because:

• PG&E’s equipment was constructed, designed, and intended to carry electricity through “exposed power lines” in areas with vegetation
• PG&E wantonly, recklessly, and negligently failed to operate and maintain its electrical equipment; and/or
• PG&E wantonly, recklessly, and negligently failed to make sure that enough space was present between vegetation and its electrical equipment

The complaint notes that the conditions surrounding the ignition of the Mosquito Fire included:

• Dry vegetation
• Strong winds
• Low humidity
• The condition and nature of PG&E’s equipment

The complaint alleges these conditions were foreseeable by a reasonably careful person, and thus were “certainly” foreseeable to PG&E, a company with “special knowledge and expertise” as providers of electrical service.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs suffered substantial harm due to the Mosquito Fire, including:

• Destruction or damage to real property
• Destruction or damage to personal property
• Out-of-pocket expenses
• Evacuation expenses
• Alternative living expenses
• Medical bills
• Personal injuries
• Loss of earning capacity
• Lost wages
• Loss of business income
• Loss of business goodwill
• Annoyance
• Emotional distress
• Disturbance
• Inconvenience
• Loss of quiet enjoyment of property
• Mental anguish

Lawsuit Claims PG&E Knew About Wildfire Risk Due to Its Past History

The complaint alleges that at the time of the Mosquito Fire’s ignition, PG&E knew that the condition and nature of its equipment, in addition to ecological, weather, geographic, and other conditions, created a high risk of PG&E’s equipment igniting a wildfire such as the Mosquito Fire.

The complaint claims that PG&E had to have been aware of this risk because of the “extensive history” of their equipment causing wildfires. The complaint claims that PG&E’s equipment has ignited over 1,500 wildfires in California since 2013, listing many examples, including the:

• Butte Fire
• North Bay Fires
• Camp Fire
• Kincade Fire
• Dixie Fire

The Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California history, and the Dixie Fire was the largest single (non-complex) wildfire in California history.

According to the complaint, these wildfires ensured that PG&E surely knew that its “ineffective” management of vegetation, “unsafe” equipment, and “aging” equipment meant that the risk of its equipment starting a wildfire such as the Mosquito Fire was “predictable.”

The complaint accuses PG&E of repeatedly and deliberately prioritizing profits over safety despite being responsible for the above previous wildfires. According to the complaint, PG&E has “a history of acting recklessly and with conscious disregard to human life and safety.”

Lawsuit Seeks to Recover Damages Based on Multiple Causes of Action

The Mosquito Fire lawsuit seeks to recover financial compensation for the plaintiffs. This includes financial compensation for:

• Replacement, depreciation, or repair of damaged or destroyed property
• Loss of the enjoyment, goodwill, benefit, and use of property
• Loss of displacement expenses, business profits, earning capacity, or wages
• Alternate living expenses
• Evacuation expenses
• Erosion damage to property
• Medical expenses
• Loss of quiet enjoyment of property
• Mental anguish
• Inconvenience
• Disturbance
• Annoyance
• Fear
• Emotional distress
• Personal injury

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages based on numerous causes of action, including:

Inverse Condemnation

The concept of inverse condemnation is the concept that private property cannot be taken or damaged for public use if the owner of the property is not compensated justly. The United States Constitution and California’s constitution both establish this concept.

California’s Supreme Court ruled in 1885 that this concept applies when public improvements such as power lines cause harm to property.

Utilities like PG&E have the ability to condemn private property under eminent domain, the concept that the government can take property to convert it to public use. California’s Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that inverse condemnation applies to private and public utilities that start wildfires, citing utilities’ ability to condemn property under eminent domain as a reason for the ruling.

The complaint argues that PG&E is liable for damages incurred by the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs have not been adequately compensated for the wildfire-related damages that were the result of PG&E’s inactions and actions in maintaining, using, controlling, operating, installing, constructing, and/or designing its equipment.

Trespass

Most people think of trespassing as a person entering property without the permission of the property’s owner. However, according to California Civil Jury Instructions, trespassing can also consist of a defendant negligently causing something (like a wildfire) to enter property without the permission of the property owner.

Californians who suffer property damage as the result of trespassing are eligible to be financially compensated for the property damage under California Civil Code § 3334.

The complaint claims that PG&E negligently let the Mosquito Fire ignite and spread onto properties owned by the plaintiffs, who did not give permission for wildfires to enter their property.

The complaint alleges that this trespassing caused damage such as:

• Damage to and destruction of property, structures, trees, underwood, or timber
• Emotional distress
• Loss of quiet enjoyment
• Mental anguish
• Inconvenience
• Annoyance
• Discomfort

Nuisance

A nuisance, according to California Civil Code § 3479, is anything that:

• Is injurious to health
• Is offensive or indecent to the senses
• Obstructs the free use of property
• Unlawfully obstructs the use or free passage of navigable areas

California’s Supreme Court ruled in 1955 that occupants of land can recover financial compensation for annoyance and discomfort caused by a nuisance. According to the complaint, the Mosquito Fire was: 

• Harmful to the plaintiffs’ health 
• Offensive to the plaintiffs’ senses 
• Obstructed the plaintiffs’ free use of property 
• Unlawfully obstructed the plaintiffs’ use or free passage of public highways and streets

Ordinary people would be reasonably disturbed and annoyed by PG&E’s inactions and actions that created the Mosquito Fire.

Public Utilities Code § 2106

California Public Utilities Code § 2106 holds utilities financially liable for damages caused by their unlawful action or inaction.

The complaint claims that PG&E failed to maintain and furnish reasonable, just, efficient, and adequate equipment as necessary to promote the convenience, comfort, health, and safety of PG&E customers and the public and that this inaction was unlawful under California Public Utilities Code § 451.

The complaint alleges that PG&E failed to comply with requirements, delineated by Public Utilities Commission General Order 95, for the maintenance, construction, and design of overhead lines.

The complaint also alleges that PG&E failed to comply with requirements, delineated by Public Utilities Commission General Order 165, involving inspections meant to make sure that electrical service is high-quality and safe.

The complaint argues that the above unlawful inaction by PG&E was a substantial factor in the ignition of the Mosquito Fire and thus the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

Health & Safety Code § 13007

California Health and Safety Code § 13007 holds utilities financially liable for property damage caused by wildfires that the utilities negligently let start and spread.

The complaint alleges that PG&E negligently allowed the Mosquito Fire to ignite and spread onto properties owned by the plaintiffs.

Negligence

Negligence is failing to exercise reasonable caution in order to prevent harm. Acting and failing to act can both be negligent. A company doing what a reasonably cautious company wouldn’t do is negligence. A company failing to do what a reasonably cautious company would do is also negligence.

The complaint argues that PG&E failed to act as a reasonably cautious utility would act by:

• Failing to maintain, operate, construct, and design their equipment in a manner that would withstand the reasonably foreseeable wildfire risk in the area the Mosquito Fire was ignited in
• Failing to stop power lines from sagging or contacting metal
• Failing to properly maintain and inspect vegetation near power lines to reduce wildfire risk
• Failing to conduct reasonably frequent, proper, and prompt inspections of equipment
• Failing to de-energize power lines during conditions posing a high risk of wildfires
• Failing to properly supervise and train agents and employees responsible for inspecting and maintaining power lines
• Failing to follow and implement regulations and practices to avoid igniting wildfires

The complaint also alleges that PG&E committed negligence per se (which is essentially negligence by virtue of breaking the law) when they violated public utilities codes and orders.

The complaint argues that PG&E’s negligence was a substantial factor in igniting the Mosquito Fire and thus a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ damages.

Lawsuit Seeks to Recover Punitive Damages

The lawsuit seeks to recover punitive damages in an amount necessary to punish PG&E for “prioritizing profits over safety,” which the complaint describes as “despicable and oppressive conduct.” The complaint seeks to punish PG&E for “acting recklessly and with conscious disregard to human life and safety.”

Can I File a Mosquito Fire Lawsuit?

If you or a loved one have suffered any of the below due to the Mosquito Fire, you may be eligible for financial compensation from PG&E in a Mosquito Fire lawsuit:

• Costs of evacuation
• Property damage
• Lost wages
• Lost belongings
• Medical bills
• Smoke damage
• Injury
• Death
• Damage to trees, timber, or underwood
• Emotional distress
• Land value depreciation
• Business losses
• Business interruption
• Funeral and burial expenses
• Loss of crops
• Harm to or loss of livestock or pets

If you or a loved one suffered any of the above, we’ll let you know if you qualify to file a lawsuit against PG&E during a free consultation.

Mosquito Fire Lawsuits

If you or a loved one has suffered evacuation, injury, death, or property damage because of the Mosquito Fire, you may be eligible for financial compensation in a lawsuit against PG&E.

The Mosquito Fire lawyers at Nadrich Accident Injury Lawyers have extensive experience handling California wildfire cases against PG&E, including cases involving the Camp Fire, Dixie Fire, and Kincade Fire. Our legal teams include attorneys who have held leadership positions in prior litigation against PG&E involving wildfires.

Call us, text us from this page, or contact us online for a free consultation so that our experienced California wildfire lawyers can hold PG&E accountable for their inaction and obtain for you the compensation and justice you deserve. 

We only charge a percentage of any financial compensation we obtain for you as our fee, and we don’t charge any fee if we don’t obtain compensation for you.