Although the farmer did not act negligently, he did set the fire. See also Department of Health v. Concrete Specialties, Inc., 112 N.J.Super. 407, 410, 271 A.2d 595 (App.Div.1970) (finding that defendant whose equipment caused smoke to be emitted into air violated regulation promulgated under APCA because defendant allowed and permitted emission of smoke). But the fire here was started by an unknown third person. Alden Leeds did nothing to cause the fire. There is no evidence that Alden Leeds either by an affirmative act or an act of omission “caused, suffered, allowed or permitted” the release. Causation is not established where the result would have occurred without any action on Alden Leeds’ part. State v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 69 N.J. 102, 111, 351 A.2d 337 (1976) (<HOLDING>). The mere storage of the chemicals by Alden
holding that a commission is a body with special and limited power and it can only exercise the power expressly or impliedly granted to it and any reasonable doubt of existence of any power must be resolved against the exercise thereof holding because nuclear power plant was only accelerating condition that would naturally have occurred it was not charged with polluting creek in violation of njsa 23528 holding that a condition banning pornography prejudiced the defendant because there was a reasonable probability that the condition would not have been imposed had the district court conducted a sufficiently individualized determination given that the defendants conviction was for a registration offense not a sexual exploitation offense holding that the court had no power to sanction conduct that occurred in an arbitration holding that agencys construction of statute it was charged with enforcing was entitled to deference because it was reasonable in line with the statutes meaning and related to its expertise