Arsonist Did the Crime and Must Serve the Time: Arson-For-Profit That Caused Death of Firefighter Results In 360 Months in Federal Prison.

• Author: Zalma, Barry
• Position: [ON MY RADAR]

As I have said many times, arson-for-profit is the most evil form of insurance fraud and one where people are injured or die. Arson-for-profit fraud is highly profitable and is engaged in by people who have no concern for the lives or property of others.

In United States of America v. Steve Allen Pritchard, No. 18-6210, United States Court of Appeals for The Sixth Circuit (July 7, 2020) Judge Nalbandian, writing for the Sixth Circuit, started his opinion with a wise description of those who commit arson: "Some men just want to watch the world burn. Others start fire to collect insurance money. Steve Pritchard is the latter. But after playing with fire several times, Pritchard's penchant for profiting from arson took a deadly turn. Instead of only damaging property, a fire started by Pritchard in June 2011 led to fire fighter Charles Sparks's death." At issue is whether Pritchard caused Sparks's death within the meaning of the federal arson statute.

THE ISSUES

Pritchard's appeal turns on first principles of causation. The common law typically permits liability only when the perpetrator acts as both the but-for and the legal cause of the harm. Laws th at invoke proximate causation generally impose liability when the harm was foreseeable. Under the arson statute Sparks's death need only be "a direct or proximate result of [Pritchard's] conduct." Sparks claimed he was neither a direct nor proximate cause of Sparks' death.

FACTS

At 3:05 AM on June 30, 20 11 , a 911 caller reported a fire at the Pritchard residence. Eleven minutes later, firefighters, including Assistant Chief Charles Sparks, arrived on the scene. These firefighters found the house engulfed in "[a] lot of fire, a lot of flam es." During the firefighting, Sparks Jost consciousness. Eight days later, Sparks died after being taken off life support.

To Brandi Pritchard 's purported surprise, Pritchard decided to drive her to work that morning, telling her th at it "would be a good morning to go ahead and start... this fire in this house[.]" On the way to work, Pritchard proclaimed, "I did it [,]" referring to the fire. Pritchard had arranged for Brandi's children and his dog to be out of the house that morning. Later, Brandi's children would testify th at Pritchard showed them photographs of the fire he took from his phone and that Pritchard implied he started the fire.

Pritchard wanted Brandi to tell investigators that he had spent the night in Louisville. And that's the same story...