The footage is one piece of a puzzle that has been the subject of so much anger, attention and investigation since the January firestorms: What happened between the time L.A. firefighters declared the Lachman fire out and when it rekindled into a catastrophic firestorm that burned huge swaths of Pacific Palisades? <\/p>\n
The video could also be key evidence for attorneys working on behalf of thousands who lost their homes against a player that has so far not received much attention.<\/p>\n
Ever since federal officials arrested<\/a> Jonathan Rinderknecht Oct. 8 on suspicion of igniting the Lachman fire \u2014 and revealed that embers from that blaze rekindled into the Jan. 7 Palisades fire \u2014 the LAFD has faced the brunt of criticism for failing to fully extinguish the New Year\u2019s Day fire.<\/p>\n But lawyers representing thousands of Palisades fire victims are also focusing on another target.<\/p>\n They argue the state, which owns Topanga State Park, where the Palisades fire began, did not do enough to monitor the small Jan 1. Lachman brush fire and stop it reigniting six days later into the devastating Palisades fire that killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,800 structures. Plaintiff attorneys are not alleging the state should have suppressed the fire; instead, they say it failed to make sure the area was secure. <\/p>\n The video, plaintiff attorneys say, corroborates the case they make in a master complaint<\/a> filed earlier this month: that the state allowed a \u201cdangerous fire condition\u201d to exist on the Lachman burn scar. They allege the state allowed \u201cembers from the Lachman Fire to smolder, rekindle and then re-ignite in dry brush\u201d as the National Weather Service warned of dangerous Santa Ana winds.<\/p>\n California State Parks did not respond to questions on what actions it took to monitor the Lachman burn scar on Topanga State Park in the run-up to the dangerous wind event, or what role it typically plays in monitoring land after fires. It also did not respond to any of the allegations in legal filings or the hiker\u2019s video showing smoke rising.<\/p>\n \u201cCalifornia State Parks does not comment on pending litigation,\u201d said a spokesperson for the agency.<\/p>\n Andrew Grinsfelder, 18, waters down the roof of his mother\u2019s home, hoping to prevent the Palisades fire from destroying their house, on Jan. 8.<\/p>\n (Genaro Molina \/ Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n Government officials typically have limited liability in fires. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity shields public servants from civil litigation, unless their actions violate \u201cclearly established\u201d law, so they can make judgments without constant legal threats and public funds are protected. <\/p>\n California government code<\/a> specifically prevents public entities and employees from being held \u201cliable for any injury resulting from the failure to provide or maintain sufficient personnel, equipment or other fire protection facilities.\u201d<\/p>\n However, David Levine, a professor of law at UC San Francisco, said allowing a \u201cdangerous condition\u201d on your property offers lawyers a possible path around immunity.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s going to depend on the facts,\u201d Levine said.<\/p>\n It is unclear whether the smoldering depicted in the hiker\u2019s video was on state land. Investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined the Lachman fire ignited on a 160-acre sliver of land owned by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority before spreading to Topanga State Park. The video appears to have been shot near the border of the two properties.<\/p>\n Whether or not the smoke in the video was on the state portion of the burn scar, the plaintiff attorneys claim it was clear the Lachman fire was not fully extinguished.<\/p>\n \u201cThe rekindle happened on the State Park land and that\u2019s what matters to our case,\u201d said Alexander \u201cTrey\u201d Robertson, an attorney who represents 3,300 Palisades residents and is co-leading litigation on behalf of all victims in the Palisades fire.<\/p>\n Plaintiff attorneys claim California State Parks did not sufficiently monitor the smoldering earth \u2014 even as NWS warned repeatedly in the days before Jan. 7 of \u201ccritical fire conditions<\/a>\u201d and a \u201clife-threatening, dangerous<\/a>\u201d windstorm across parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.<\/p>\n Protocol outlined in the state\u2019s Department of Parks and Recreation Operations Manual<\/a> indicates that staff should monitor burn scars: \u201cAreas of a park unit which have burned will remain closed,\u201d it states, \u201cuntil appropriate Department staff have inspected the area and rectified any public safety, property or resource protection issues.\u201d<\/p>\n Plaintiff attorneys argue that didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n \u201cThe State failed to inspect and maintain its property and failed to provide proper fire protection on its property to allow embers from the Lachman Fire on its property,\u201d the complaint states, \u201cparticularly in the presence of overgrown and poorly maintained dry chaparral, as well as knowledge of extreme fire weather conditions and predicted Red Flag Warning wind events.\u201d<\/p>\n If a park ranger had inspected the Lachman burn scar and seen the smoke coming out of the ground, Robertson said, they could have urged the LAFD to come back out and properly extinguish that fire.<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to note the state has released few details about park rangers\u2019 actions between the Lachman fire and the Palisades fire. It is possible state employees did monitor the burn scar and did not see smoke. California State Parks declined to provide details about ranger movements in the critical days between the two fires.<\/p>\n The area where the Lachman fire burned was not in a remote area, Robertson noted. It is just a couple minutes from a trailhead parking lot in an area popular with hikers.<\/p>\n \u201cA park ranger could have very easily parked his or her truck, and walked a few-minute hike to top of the trail and just done a visual inspection,\u201d Robertson said.<\/p>\n Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star who lost his home in the Palisades fire and has since become an advocate for accountability, said park managers have a duty to keep the public safe.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s so obvious that they left it all smoldering \u2014 to the point where multiple hikers have videos of it still smoldering,\u201d Pratt said. \u201cWe pay our taxes for it to be maintained. It\u2019s in their policy manuals. It\u2019s the law; it\u2019s their government code: that it can\u2019t create a danger to our town, our houses.\u201d<\/p>\n What happened after the Lachman fire?<\/p>\n When flames lit up the hillside near Skull Rock on the Temescal Ridge Trail shortly after midnight on New Year\u2019s Day, firefighters moved quickly to suppress the blaze.<\/p>\n Within minutes of getting the first 911 call, fire engines rushed to the nearest trailhead and LAFD firefighters hiked to Skull Rock on foot. County firefighters dug a handline to block the spread of the fire with the assistance of LAFD hose lines.<\/p>\n By 4:46 a.m., the LAFD announced<\/a> that firefighters had \u201ccompleted the hose line around the perimeter of the fire\u201d and it was \u201cfully contained.\u201d \u201cSome resources will be released as the mop up operation continues,\u201d it added, \u201cto ensure no flare ups.\u201d<\/p>\n The next day, when firefighters returned to collect fire hoses, \u201cit appeared to them that the fire was fully extinguished,\u201d according to an affidavit by a special agent with the ATF.<\/p>\n According to the ATF special agent, a firebrand became lodged within dense chaparral and then smoldered and burned within the roots of the vegetation. The underground burning, he stated, was not visible to firefighters or members of the public who visited the burn scar after the Lachman fire.<\/p>\n But that appears to be contradicted by the video taken Jan 2. A local resident shot footage showing smoke and no firefighters on site. <\/p>\n Five days later, the Palisades fire ignited in Topanga State Park about 20 feet south of the perimeter of the Lachman fire.<\/p>\n The legal case<\/p>\n Los Angeles firefighters have been widely criticized for their lack of preparation before the Palisades fire.<\/p>\n A week after the January firestorm, a Times investigation found that the LAFD failed to predeploy engines to the Palisades<\/a> as meteorologists warned of critical fire conditions.<\/p>\n After the ATF announced this month that the Palisades fire was a holdover fire ignited by embers of the Lachman fire, Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva told The Times that the LAFD did not use thermal imaging technology<\/a> to confirm the Lachman fire was out.<\/p>\n But attorneys face steep odds bringing legal claims against the LAFD because California government<\/a> code<\/a> gives public officials broad immunity against claims of negligent firefighting.<\/p>\n The case against the state, however, is different. Attorneys representing fire victims argue government immunity does not apply to the state\u2019s failure to inspect its land in the days between the Lachman and Palisades fires to ensure that no smoldering embers remained that could reignite as meteorologists warned of dangerous Santa Ana winds.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n