Lawsuit claims Southern California Edison’s negligence caused Woolsey Fire

Author: Jeffrey Nadrich

A lawsuit claims Southern California Edison’s (SCE) negligence caused the Woolsey Fire in November 2018. The fire burned 96,949 acres of land, destroyed 1,643 structures, killed three people and forced the evacuation of over 295,000 people.

The complaint states that SCE sent an electric safety incident report to the California Public Utilities Commision which stated, "preliminary information indicates the Woolsey Fire was reported at approximately 2:24 p.m. Our information reflects the Big Rock 16kV circuit out of Chatsworth Substation relayed at 2:22 p.m." The complaint notes that SCE customers lost power at the moment that SCE reported a "disturbance" on its Big Rock 16 kV circuit.

"The Woolsey Fire spread quickly, pushed by strong Santa Ana winds and dry vegetation created by years of drought conditions in Southern California," the complaint states.

The complaint notes that another wildfire started in nearby Thousand Oaks around an hour before the fire started: the 2018 Roadrunner Fire. "Witnesses observed sparks falling to the ground from SCE’s power lines, igniting the vegetation below," the complaint states about the 2018 Roadrunner Fire. The complaint notes that strong Santa Ana winds were blowing in the area at the time, and that the area was under a red flag warning issued by the National Weather Service. The complaint notes that the 2018 Roadrunner Fire was the third wildfire in the last three years to start in the same area caused by SCE’s power lines arcing into heavy vegetation and trees.

The complaint argues that SCE should have de-energized the power lines before they started the fire, given the area was under a red flag warning, was being hit by strong Santa Ana winds and SCE’s power lines started a fire one hour earlier in the same area.

"SCE knew the risks of its overhead electrical equipment causing wildfires in Ventura County during Santa Ana wind events," the complaint states. "However, despite its knowledge of the forecast of dangerous high winds, SCE chose not to de-energize any of its electrical circuits in Thousand Oaks or Simi Valley prior to the Roadrunner or Woolsey Fires."

The complaint alleges that the fire was caused by SCE’s negligence in:

  • Failing to safely maintain its overhead electrical facilities;
  • Failing to manage vegetation as mandated by regulations;
  • Failing to de-energize the Big Rock 16kV circuit to prevent a wildfire.

The complaint claims SCE "had a non-delegable, non-transferable duty to properly construct, inspect, maintain, repair, manage and/or/operate its electrical power lines, utility poles and appurtenant equipment and to keep vegetation and trees properly trimmed at a safe distance so as to prevent foreseeable contact with its electrical equipment."

The complaint notes that regulations mandate that SCE ensure its power lines and utility poles can withstand winds up to 92 mph, clear vegetation from within 10 feet of any power pole or tower and maintain a 4 to 10 foot clearance for all power lines by clearing vegetation. The complaint says SCE is also mandated to clear any hazards created by dead, old, rotten or weak trees with portions leaning towards power lines which may fail and fall on the lines. The complaint claims that SCE’s failure to obey these regulations contributed to starting the fire.

The complaint demonstrates that SCE knew about the risk of wildfires its "aging and over-loaded utility poles" created prior to the fire, citing a prior fire, a prior windstorm which caused power outages, an SCE pole loading study and an SCE pole loading program. The prior fire cited involved only 50 mph winds.

The complaint cites three prior fires which demonstrated that SCE "knew its overhead electrical equipment had caused wildfires in the past during Santa Ana wind events," a January 2017 fire in Thousand Oaks, the Thomas Fire and the 2017 Roadrunner Fire.

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

Negligence: CACI No. 401 defines negligence as "the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others." Acting can be negligent, as can be failing to act. Negligence is doing what a reasonably careful person wouldn’t or not doing what a reasonably careful person would.

The complaint alleges that SCE was negligent for many reasons, including:

  • Not inspecting their power lines in a reasonably frequent, proper and prompt way;
  • Not adequately training employees and agents to adequately maintain vegetation surrounding power lines.
  • Not ensuring their lines could withstand Santa Ana winds;
  • Not de-energizing power lines despite the red flag conditions and power lines starting a fire nearby one hour before the fire started;
  • Not clearing vegetation as required by Public Resource Code § 4292;
  • Not inspecting power lines as required by PUC General Order 165;

"The Woolsey Fire was the direct, legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence," the complaint states.

Inverse condemnation: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," reads the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Inverse condemnation is when the government takes property without providing the above mentioned just compensation, forcing a property owner to sue the government for the compensation. The term can also refer to property which is damaged rather than taken in some states.

In direct condemnation, the government is the plaintiff and the government sues a land owner to take property from them. Land owners are the plaintiffs in inverse condemnation, hence the name inverse condemnation.

Inverse condemnation is established by Article One, Section 19 of California’s constitution, which says "private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner." An 1885 California Supreme Court ruling established that this allowed land owners to be compensated when public improvements damage their property. Power lines constructed by a public utility constitute a public improvement.

The complaint seeks to recover damages based on inverse condemnation since the public improvement that was SCE’s power lines damaged properties by starting the fire.

Trespass: Negligently started fires that wrongfully occupy the land of others are considered a trespass. The complaint claims that the fire was started because of SCE’s negligence, thus the fire trespassed on others’ properties when it damaged them.

The complaint, under this cause of action, seeks treble or double damages for wrongful injuries to underwood, trees or timber as allowed by Civil Code § 3346, and seeks the cost of restoration or repair to their property and/or loss of use damages as allowed by Civil Code § 3334.

Premises liability: The complaint says an unsafe condition was created by SCE’s negligence in failing to adequately maintain, control, inspect or manage vegetation near their power lines.

Violation of Public Utilities Code § 2106: Public utilities are liable when their unlawful inaction or inaction causes damages, and the complaint notes multiple SCE violations of regulations, including violations of Public Utilities Code § 702, Public Utilities Code 451 and CPUC General Order 95.

Violation of Health & Safety Code § 13007: People who start or negligently cause a fire to be started in California are liable to owners of property the fire damaged in California under this code.

Private nuisance: The complaint argues that harm and damages considered a nuisance were caused by the fire, causing issues with use and enjoyment of property. The complaint states that SCE is liable for this under Civil Code § 3334.

Public nuisance: The complaint argues that public health was harmed and use and enjoyment of public property were interfered with by the fire. The complaint states that Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480 and Public Resources Code §§ 4170 and 4171 consider this a public nuisance.