[malandrew]

The definition of negligence doesn't matter. Even if they are proven to not be negligent and they did all the preventative maintenance, they are still liable. Under this scenario, it doesn't matter if they do preventative maintenance or not since they are on the hook either way. The only way to avoid being on the hook is to shut off power since that is the only way to reliably prevent even the best maintained equipment from causing a fire.

[dragonwriter]

> Even if they are proven to not be negligent and they did all the preventative maintenance, they are still liable. Under this scenario, it doesn't matter if they do preventative maintenance or not since they are on the hook either way.

Yes, there is a strict liability regime. Yes, this makes the definition of negligence irrelevant. No, this doesn't make preventive maintenance irrelevant: strict liability only applies to fires caused by their equipment, and preventive maintenance obviously effects that (that's what it is preventive of.)

But, in any case, if there weren't at least negligence involved, the behavior contributing to the fires would probably not have been found to be a violation of their criminal probation on top of any civil liability for damage caused by the fire.

[kevingadd]

If they did everything they needed to, how are they negligent? I don't understand. The negligence so far has specifically been because poor maintenance triggered fires.

The power shut-offs are in response to the past fires, which were caused by poorly maintained lines.