Appendix B

Non-Exclusive List Of Factual Issues

For each fire the victims have claims based on the following causes of action, (1) inverse 

condemnation, (2) negligence, (3) trespass, (4) nuisance (public or private), and (5) violation of 

Health & Safety Code 13007. In addition, Plaintiffs have claims for punitive damages and/or for 

exemplary damages under Public Utilities Code, Section 2106. What follows is a list of issues, 

which may need to be decided as to each fire, depending on the factual circumstances of its 

origin. It should also be noted that these issues relate to the acts and/or omissions of PG&E 

and/or its contractors because, as a matter of law, PG&E is vicariously liable for the acts and/or 

omissions of its contractors. (“[T]he nondelegable duty rule means that PG&E may be 

vicariously liable for compensatory damages arising from contractors’ negligence, irrespective of 

fault. Butte Fire Cases, 24 Cal. App. 5th 1150, 1175, (2018).) This list is not exhaustive and 

cannot be exhaustive until PG&E specifically identifies the fires on which its contests liability as 

to the above stated causes of action and claims.

For each fire, depending its cause, the issues to be decided include:

1. Was the fire caused by electricity supplied by PG&E?

2. Was there damage to property caused by PG&E’s electrical system as deliberately 

designed and constructed?

3. Was the line involved in the fire installed for a public purpose or use?

4. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in failing to de-energize its lines under high 

fire danger conditions in high fire danger areas?

5. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in the inspection of its distribution lines?

6. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in the maintenance of its distribution lines?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3431-2 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 15:51:42 Page 1

of 3
2

7. Was PG&E negligent in failing to de-energize its lines under high fire danger 

conditions in high fire danger areas?

8. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in failing to trim or remove trees, which 

posed a risk to its lines?

9. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in failing to properly and timely inspect, 

maintain and/or repair its distribution lines?

10. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in failing to open its reclosers under high 

fire danger conditions?

11. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in failing to warn the public of a dangerous 

condition on its easement?

12. As the owner of an easement, did PG&E allow an unreasonably dangerous 

condition to exist on its easement?

13. Was PG&E or its contractor negligent in failing to properly and timely inspect its 

electrical equipment and poles?

14. Did PG&E or its contractor negligently and/or intentionally allow fire to enter 

onto the victim’s land?

15. Did PG&E or its contractor act unreasonably so as to interfere with the victims’ 

enjoyment and use of his or her property?

16. Was the interference with the victims’ enjoyment and use of his or her property 

substantial and unreasonable?

17. Did PG&E willfully, negligently or in violation of law cause a fire, which escaped 

onto the property of the victims?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3431-2 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 15:51:42 Page 2

of 3
3

18. Did PG&E act with conscious disregard for the safety of the victims and was that 

conduct despicable as set forth in California Civil Code Section 3294?

19. Was PG&E’s conduct, in causing the fire, willful as set forth in Public Utilities 

Code, Section 2106?

20. Did PG&E with knowledge of the potential claims of the victims engage in 

spoliation of evidence?

21. Did PG&E, after having been ordered by the CPUC to preserve evidence, destroy 

evidence relevant to the fire and its causation?

22. As a result of its non-delegable duty to safely operate and maintain the subject 

lines and to operate the lines in accordance with CPUC General Orders and Regulations, is 

PG&E vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of its third party contractors?

Camp Fire includes the following additional issues:

23. Was PG&E and/or its contractor negligent in the inspection of its transmission 

line and tower?

24. Was PG&E and/or its contractor negligent in the maintenance of its transmission 

line and tower?

25. Did PG&E intentionally decide to run its transmission line and tower, including 

the component parts, to failure?

26. Did PG&E intentionally decide not to maintain its transmission line and tower?

27. Was PG&E and/or its contractor negligent in adopting a “run to failure” protocol 

for its transmission tower components and insulators?

28. Was PG&E and/or its contractor negligent in choosing not to maintain its 

transmission line and tower?

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3431-2 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 15:51:42 Page 3

of 3