Doe negligently caused a fire in his house, and the house burned to the ground. As a result, the sun streamed into Peter's yard next door, which previously had been shaded by Doe's house. The sunshine destroyed some delicate and valuable trees in Peter's yard that could grow only in the shade. Peter has brought a grow only in the shade. Peter has brought a negligence action against Doe for the loss of Peter's trees. Doe has moved to dismiss the complaint. The best argument in support of this motion would be that 
Doe's negligence was not the active cause of the loss of Peter's trees. Doe's duty to avoid the risks created by a fire did not encompass the risk that sunshine would damage Peter's trees. the loss of the trees was not a natural and probable consequence of Doe's negligence. Peter suffered a purely economic loss, which is not compensable in a negligence action. 