[irl_zebra]

This reasoning would lead to such absurd results in real life, and I am thankful no courts of any country or jurisdiction follow this logic.

For those reading: this is the difference between proximate cause and actual cause. Yes it's true that but for the fire being started in the first place, the fire would not have rekindled. But once professional firefighters arrive to put out the fire, it's not foreseeable by a normal person that the fire could be rekindled, so that person wouldn't be liable. The harm is too remote. The firefighters may even be grossly negligent because they are professionals, intervened, and the fire rekindled. A person negligently failing to fully extinguish their own fire would lead to liability, though.

[pie_flavor]

Extremely incorrect. He set the fire and the fire burned down Malibu. The presence of emergency services does not affect whether he set the fire that burned down Malibu. Whether they succeed or fail in their job of limiting the impact of your crime does not affect whether you committed the crime.