Firefighters let house burn down

The firefighters were not contracted to help this home.

The firefighters were not in the duty of care to serve this home. In this case, an "adult patient of ordinary capacity [terminated] the duty by refusing consent" because the "patient" did not pay.

At the header of that article, it states, "the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty." The law imposes a duty for these firefighters to act if and only if their services have been contracted and paid for by the owner of the property. This did not happen, so these firefighters are not guilty of omission or failing to provide a contractual service.

Not only would they gain points in public media's eyes and receive a fair payment from the houseowner, they also are likely to gain more subscriptions. What's better, the next time it happens, you won't be bombarded with half as much hatred.

Why would they gain more subscriptions? If they had hosed the house even though the property owner did not pay, what incentive is that for other people to pay? I don't know about anyone else, but if I only had to pay for insurance when I absolutely needed it and got full benefits of doing so, I would never ever pay for insurance and only pay for it as I needed to. Sounds like a swell plan for me! No risk of me paying and receiving nothing.