snoloco wrote
Harvey wrote
This caught my attention:
"They learned later that night that the family friends would not be staying in the 80-year-old structure after all. Worried about the possibility of a fire, they considered hiking up to investigate, but “figured if there was a fire, it had already happened,” according to investigators."
This seems to imply that they had a pretty good idea that the way they left things was a fire hazard and were counting on someone showing up to disarm that hazard. That is a bit hard to fathom.
That's why I said what I said about suing them. They clearly had an idea that there was a fire hazard, but chose not to report it. They should be paying for the full cost to rebuild it, and the lost revenue from people who had reservations that didn't get to stay there because it was burnt down.
It seems pretty likely that they will pay the full cost to rebuild it.
If someone is giving you exactly what you want, do you punch them in the nose just because they fucked up?
Usually you try to prove negligence to hold someone responsible. If those responsible are stepping up to pay the cost, what do you gain by suing them? Maybe drive an employer out of NoVT?
The contributions pouring in thing is about saving face. Whatever.
I don't get it. Did your dad punish you to the max every time you screwed up?
"You just need to go at that shit wide open, hang on, and own it." —Camp