驳斥“不可抗力”：在加州山火诉讼中对抗电力公司的免责辩护

山火过后，电力公司往往会动用一个古老的法律辩护理由：“不可抗力” (Act of God)。他们声称灾难是由无法抗拒的自然力量造成的，非人力所能预见或预防。由 Todd Becker 律师领导的 Becker Law Group (贝克法律集团) 擅长拆解这种企业避责手段。在 2026 年的法律环境下，如果电力公司未能针对可预见的加州气候做好准备，他们就不能将人为的疏忽归咎于“天意”。

什么是山火诉讼中的“不可抗力”辩护？

不可抗力辩护是指如果事件完全由自然力量引起且无任何人力干预，被告可免除责任。电力公司常以此辩称，“百年一遇”的强风或史无前例的干旱才是真凶。然而，根据加州法律，如果电力公司的疏忽（如未修剪树木或未更换老化绝缘子）对起火起到了哪怕一点点作用，这种辩护就不能成立。

为什么在 2026 年，气候变化不再是“天意”？

进入 2026 年，法律对**“可预见性”**的要求已发生变化。加州法院和公用事业委员会 (CPUC) 已经承认，极端天气已成为常态。电力公司被要求进行“动态风险评估”。如果电力公司明知某地区容易出现强风和干枯植被，却未采取预防措施，那么其设备引发的火灾就是“可预见风险”，而非不可抗力。贝克法律集团的主张是：如果您在自己的《减灾计划》中已经预见到了灾难，就不能在法庭上称其为意外。

如何通过“共同过失”推翻免责理由？

推翻“不可抗力”辩护最有效的方法是证明存在共同过失 (Concurrent Negligence)。这意味着，虽然发生了风暴，但如果电力设施维护得当，火灾就不会发生。例如，如果一棵本已被标记为“危险树木”但未被及时清理的枯树被风吹倒并压断电线，那么电力公司的疏忽就是起火的共同原因。在这种情况下，法律要求电力公司必须承担赔偿责任。

Defending Against "Act of God" Arguments from Utilities in California Fire Litigation

In the wake of a catastrophic wildfire, utility companies often turn to a centuries-old legal defense: the "Act of God." This argument suggests that the disaster was caused by an irresistible, superhuman force that could not have been prevented by human foresight. At Becker Law Group, led by Todd Becker, we specialize in dismantling these corporate shields. As we navigate the 2026 legal landscape, it is clearer than ever that when a utility fails to prepare for predictable California weather, they cannot hide behind the "divine."

What is the "Act of God" Defense in Wildfire Lawsuits?

An Act of God (force majeure) is a legal defense used to excuse a defendant from liability if an event was caused exclusively by natural forces without human intervention. In wildfire litigation, utilities often argue that "once-in-a-century" winds or unprecedented droughts were the true culprits. However, under California law, if human negligence—such as a failure to trim a tree or replace a 60-year-old insulator—contributed to the ignition even slightly, the "Act of God" defense fails.

Why Climate Change is Not an "Act of God" in 2026

In 2026, the legal threshold for foreseeability has shifted. California courts and the CPUC now recognize that "extreme" weather is the new normal. Utilities are mandated to perform Dynamic Risk Assessments that account for climate-driven fuel aridity. If a utility knows that a specific canyon is prone to high-velocity winds and dry brush, a fire ignited by their equipment in those conditions is considered a "foreseeable risk," not an "Act of God." At Becker Law Group, we argue that a disaster you predicted in your own Wildfire Mitigation Plan cannot be claimed as an act of divine surprise.

Proving "Concurrent Negligence"

The most effective way to defeat an "Act of God" argument is to prove Concurrent Negligence. This means that while a windstorm (the natural force) may have occurred, the fire would not have started if the utility’s equipment (the human factor) had been properly maintained. For example, if a healthy tree blows over, that might be an Act of God; however, if a dead, "hazard tree" that was flagged for removal months ago blows into a line, the utility’s negligence is a concurrent cause, making them liable for the damages.

The Role of Inverse Condemnation

One of the strongest tools in our arsenal is the doctrine of Inverse Condemnation. Under the California Constitution, if a utility's equipment is a "substantial cause" of property damage, the utility is held strictly liable, regardless of their level of care. This doctrine essentially bypasses the "Act of God" defense for property damage. While utilities in 2026 continue to lobby for caps on this liability, Becker Law Group remains a steadfast advocate for the constitutional rights of property owners to be made whole.