Certainly not as racist.
They could have offered to pay the whole bill. The body shop gets free power in exchange for looking the other way. And taking on the risk of a bunch of people dying in a horrible fire, but they probably didn’t expect that.
The main reason to sue PG&E is because they have money. Unlike, I suspect, the owners of the body shop.
Do you think these guys were rolling in money? And why pay someone for someone else’s electricity use on top of your own when all you’d have to do is call PG&E to set up an account? As I said, the building probably already had a hookup.
It’s a case for Occam’s razor. When someone runs a power line from the building next door, the simplest explanation is that they’re stealing electricity.
Isn’t this going after a deep pocket, no matter how little the actual responsibility is?
After the fire in The Station night club, the speaker company JBL was sued because of the foam material in the speakers, despite the fact that they could not have have been much of a factor. JBL is owned by Harman International and has sufficient resources.
PG&E is being sued because there is a connection (a flimsy one IMO) between their service and the fire. A rigorous defense would absolve PG&E but the cost of a rigorous defense has to be weighed against a settling cost. The victims went after PG&E to get the settlement.
PG&E may decide to defend itself out of principle which would probably cause the victims to drop PG&E from the suit.
I think that there’s also a rule of thumb that you don’t know what an investigation is going to turn up, so you err on the side of caution.
If, for example, they don’t name the utility company in the suit and it later turns out that a PG&E worker was actually accepting bribes to look the other way or there is an internal memo identifying the Ghost Ship as a potential fire hazard or something like that, then all the named parties will try to shift all the the blame to that person–and since they aren’t a part of the suit, they can’t be forced to pay or anything. I think you can file a separate suit, but in that case, they will seek to shift the blame to the parties in the first suit.
This. Which is why many legal actions of this type also name “Does 1 through 25” or some such, to include potentially culpable entities whose names and participation are as yet unknown. I don’t quite understand the legal needs, but the gist is that if they are named, they can be renamed or fully identified with little effort, but adding them to an existing claim is much more difficult.
But if a PG&E employee was corrupt how does that make PG&E culpable?
There are many circumstances in which an employer is responsible for what an employee does on the job–I don’t know the particulars. But it doesn’t have to be someone was corruption–they might discover that some PG&E sent an email stating “I was out repairing a line today and I saw a highly suspicious extension cord running out of a body shop, and when I looked up the address of the building next door, they had no service at all, but I saw lights on. I think it’s most probably a huge fire hazard” and was then ignored.
Micah Allison, the wife of Derick “Ion” Almena, held a press conference today along with the lawyers of the defendants (Tony Serra and Jeffrey Krasnoff):
The defense team is blaming everyone in sight, including PG&E, Oakland building inspectors, the tenant next door whom they claim installed a transformer without a permit (I assume this is the body shop from whom the Ghost Ship was getting its electricity), and the Oakland Fire Department (they claim the firefighters exacerbated the smoke on the second floor by chopping holes in the roof).
Krasnoff says that PG&E had wiring and a meter in the building, but that the wires were “too small to handle the voltage,” and that the meter was of a type that tends to overheat. Setting aside the basic error that wiring is generally rated for current, not for voltage, there’s the issue that circuit breakers are supposed to protect the wiring against overheating. It’s never been the responsibility of PG&E to supply or maintain circuit breakers as far as I know. Also, if they were using the building’s own wiring, why did they tap into the transformer next door?
As an aside, I should say that although I’m not the type of person who hates lawyers, I’ll make an exception for Tony Serra.
There is a rating for insulation for high voltages, but that wouldn’t apply to proper wiring for housing or warehouses. If they were picking off an ungrounded transformer secondary, all bets are off. Who knows what the ac was, or what dc level it got to. That whole scenario scares the bejesus out of me, and I’m used to working with high power.
To quote my bro, everybody hates personal injury lawyers until they need a personal injury lawyer.
Here’s a report by KTVU, a local TV station, that includes a jailhouse interview with Derick Almena. I watched the interview on TV, and in my opinion his lawyers made a mistake in allowing it. He makes statements that I think could be used against him in court, like complaining about how unsafe the building was when he rented it (if he knew it was unsafe, why did he sublet it and allow people to live there?).
Almena did make some interesting claims in the interview. He said that Child Protective Services once investigated the place and found it OK. He said both the police and fire department were inside the building many times (it had been reported previously that the police had been in there a couple of times for business unrelated to the goings-on in the building, and that the fire department had never been inside). He said the infamous pallet staircase was actually made from materials he bought at Home Depot, and was the only thing still standing after the fire was extinguished.
KTVU will air a full hour of the interview on their KTVU Plus station tomorrow at 7 p.m. PST.
Turns out that the fire may have been the will of the spirits of the forest.
A judge has ordered Derick Almena and Max Harris to stand trial Here’s the story.
The defense attorneys are already arguing their cases in public, probably with the intent of influencing the jury pool. They have pointed out that the cause of the fire hasn’t been established, which seems irrelevant to me since neither defendant has been charged with causing the fire directly. Tony Serra, one of Almena’s lawyers, said, “The premises was not a fire trap. It was mystical, overwhelming, spiritual, ascetic, social and a community of artists and people of integrity who were not related to commerciality, greed or financial gain” - a tack which I doubt will help his defendant in court.
The lawyers are also trying to deflect blame onto the landlord, PG&E and the city. While I think it’s true that the landlord and the city didn’t do their jobs to ensure the property was safe, that doesn’t mean the defendants were free of responsibility. The defendants’ argument seems to be, “Somebody should have stopped us.”
Most of this is predictable. The defendants have a weak case, so they’re trying to create a smokescreen (sorry) by blaming everyone else, and by introducing irrelevancies.
Par for the course in Trump’s America.
You can’t blame the right for these clowns. Alas.
Tony Serra looks like he escaped from the pages of The Crypt Keeper, doesn’t he? He’d do less damage back there.
Yeah, this:
“The premises was not a fire trap. It was mystical, overwhelming, spiritual, ascetic, social and a community of artists and people of integrity who were not related to commerciality, greed or financial gain”
Sounds like the hippiest hippies that ever hipped.
So would the trial be a hip check?
Damn, that’s funny! 