Grable v. Varela

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that intentionally setting a grass fire that spread out of control to bum a house was insufficient to satisfy the arson statute’s intent requirement of “willfully and maliciously”
• holding that intentionally setting a grass fire that spread out of control to burn a house was insufficient to satisfy the arson statute's intent requirement of \willfully and maliciously\
• noting that the rule is no longer limited to premises liability cases
• assuming, arguendo, that arson is an exception to the fireman's rule, the facts do not show arson
• intentionally setting a grass fire that spread out of control to burn a house was merely reckless and therefore insufficient to satisfy the intent requirement
• intentionally setting a grass fire that spread out of control to burn a house was merely reckless and therefore insufficient to satisfy the intent requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).