The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Court cases against Volunteer Fire Departments this week in the news
In the past couple of days we have discussed a court case in KY where the fire department is being sued by a homeowner who states that the fire department was not prepared or negligent in fighting a fire on their property. They now want to hold the department responsible for the property damage. We have also read about another court case in Canada where a ff driving his POV, struck & killed a civilian at the scene of an MVA. The litigation says that the fire department should have used emergency vehicles to warn drivers of the accident. (These are generalizations of each case.)This is REAL LIFE! In this day & age of anyone can sue anybody for almost any reason these cases are going to be more frequent particularly if there is any merit to them.
In the case of the ff running over the civilian/pedestrian the attorney is arguing that had an emergency apparatus been placed at the top of the hill to warn motorists of the hazard the man may not have been hit. My comment to that is that the firefighter driving his POV was probably already aware of the incident. Would he have stopped at the top of the hill HAD there been a big truck with flashing lights sitting there? The court is going to say that the man, even though he was driving his POV, is a member of the FD and acting as a firefighter at that point in time since he was actually on scene making the fire department responsible for his actions. They will (rightfully) argue that the member should have been following department protocol at the time. It then becomes a matter of conduct. Can the FD be sued because one of the members is found guilty of vehicular or involuntary manslaughter or whatever the formal charges in the case? We as firefighters are NOT trained to run over people while we are responding to a call. But was the fire department responsible by not giving the warning, yet they were in process of doing so, or responsible for the firefighter operating his own vehicle?
In the KY case, was the FD actually negligent? Where I live, if we have no one to roll on an incident, we have automatic mutual aid. Often during the day it may take three departments to get enough manpower and equipment on scene to get the job done. We know this. We prepare for it. Although, if they were alerted to a fire in a shed. . .perhaps they did not know the intensity of the fire and/or that it was endangering other structures. Was that information given to them before they responded? If it was a large fire, why did they not call for back up immediately? We know how quickly a small bit of any type of accelerant can increase a fire's intensity, so can other unseen factors. An officer should never underestimate any fire. Wouldn't it be better to have too many fire fighters by calling in mutual aid than to not have enough and need them? It is apparent that "something" went wrong in this case.
These are two different types of actions in totally different areas but the point in both cases is that in conducting our business, doing our duty, something went very wrong. The public or the courts are contending that perhaps someone should pay the price. We will follow both cases to see how they pan out.
The reality is that even though your FD is 100% VOLUNTEER, we volunteer to do a job. Not being paid does not give us an excuse to do the job half way or negligently. Safety measures must be followed at all times not only to ensure our lives but those of others as well. Be prepared not only to take on the job to the best of your ability, but to the standards set for how it should be done. Taking a pick up truck with a couple of water cans on it to a structure fire does not constitute a RESPONSE. When we have a less than stellar performance in an attempt to do the job, only causes doubt to be shed on others if we do it in a less than professional manner.
In the case of the ff running over the civilian/pedestrian the attorney is arguing that had an emergency apparatus been placed at the top of the hill to warn motorists of the hazard the man may not have been hit. My comment to that is that the firefighter driving his POV was probably already aware of the incident. Would he have stopped at the top of the hill HAD there been a big truck with flashing lights sitting there? The court is going to say that the man, even though he was driving his POV, is a member of the FD and acting as a firefighter at that point in time since he was actually on scene making the fire department responsible for his actions. They will (rightfully) argue that the member should have been following department protocol at the time. It then becomes a matter of conduct. Can the FD be sued because one of the members is found guilty of vehicular or involuntary manslaughter or whatever the formal charges in the case? We as firefighters are NOT trained to run over people while we are responding to a call. But was the fire department responsible by not giving the warning, yet they were in process of doing so, or responsible for the firefighter operating his own vehicle?
In the KY case, was the FD actually negligent? Where I live, if we have no one to roll on an incident, we have automatic mutual aid. Often during the day it may take three departments to get enough manpower and equipment on scene to get the job done. We know this. We prepare for it. Although, if they were alerted to a fire in a shed. . .perhaps they did not know the intensity of the fire and/or that it was endangering other structures. Was that information given to them before they responded? If it was a large fire, why did they not call for back up immediately? We know how quickly a small bit of any type of accelerant can increase a fire's intensity, so can other unseen factors. An officer should never underestimate any fire. Wouldn't it be better to have too many fire fighters by calling in mutual aid than to not have enough and need them? It is apparent that "something" went wrong in this case.
These are two different types of actions in totally different areas but the point in both cases is that in conducting our business, doing our duty, something went very wrong. The public or the courts are contending that perhaps someone should pay the price. We will follow both cases to see how they pan out.
The reality is that even though your FD is 100% VOLUNTEER, we volunteer to do a job. Not being paid does not give us an excuse to do the job half way or negligently. Safety measures must be followed at all times not only to ensure our lives but those of others as well. Be prepared not only to take on the job to the best of your ability, but to the standards set for how it should be done. Taking a pick up truck with a couple of water cans on it to a structure fire does not constitute a RESPONSE. When we have a less than stellar performance in an attempt to do the job, only causes doubt to be shed on others if we do it in a less than professional manner.
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Jeff Williams on August 22, 2011 at 3:52pm
-
Got a question for you Jenny. Could a homeowner sue or have you ever heard of a homeowner suing a fire department for not conducting salvage of personal property? We recently added a fire investigation unit to our department. Im not sure why? If we have a fishy fire or things look a little suspicious we can call in a state fire marshall to investigate it for free. Ever since we trained these guys, they think everything is arson. We put the fire out and we're allowed to do overhaul but not salvage. They think it's tampering with evidence. My opion is that if it isn't burnt up then obviosly thats not where the fire started. The last fire we had was ruled accidental due to faulty wiring. When i was at that fire i asked my company officer if i could get a couple wedding pictures off the wall so they wouldn't get ruined durring overhaul. The answer he got from the brass was no. They were home at the time of the fire and nothing looked out of the ordinary or suspicios. They lost everything! We could have easily save numerous pieces of memorobelia for this family and we didn't because they were all gung hoe about putting on their little investigation jump suits and sifting through some ashes like they're some kinda big wig. Doesn't sit very well with me as far as customer service goes and i think we're gonna get a bad name for our selves or worse (a lawsuit) if we keep it up.
-
Comment by Joey "BigShow" De Piano on November 3, 2008 at 1:48am
-
Lets remeber as you stated anyone can sue anyone for anything no matter if laws are in effect or not you can have personal insurance to the heaveans your still going to be sued, most towns , districts have rider policies on membersfor that , but in todays world home owner insurance DOES not and if thay can WILL NOT PAy or will try to cheat true value so people have to recoupe other ways so you the dept. the maker of the truck the hydrant name it if it was there its getting sued
-
Comment by Jenny Holderby on November 2, 2008 at 6:13pm
-
Thanks for the comments. Sometimes I get on a roll & wonder if anyone else ever sees things the way I do. You guys are great @ pointing out other thoughts as well.
We have VFIS insurance. THANK GOODNESS!! It is a big expense but fortunately we manage to keep up. They are great with claims & with explanations of benefits. They will represent us with other insurance companies.
Once a year we have an "annual meeting" to elect officers and present yearly reports. We ask everyone to update thier beneficiary information.
My husband and I both are members of the FD. We don't have our insurance made out to each other. Our children (now both adults) are the ones who should benefit from it if anything happens. I trust them both to take care of anything their dad or I either one would need should the other of pass.
-
Comment by Engineco913 on November 2, 2008 at 2:40pm
-
There is always the other thing that insurance companies will ask for proof on. If a member is injured in a MVA or strikes another motorist and DOESN'T have lights and siren, PROVE they were going to the scene of a fire call. There is a vague interpretation of the word "responding" when related to a fire call. Insurance companies are paid mega bucks to say the word "no" when asked to pay a claim, and they will find a loophole anywhere they can.
I know this is to the extreme, but has everyone on your department filled out beneficiary cards? This goes hand in hand with the "oh shit, now what" theory.
Great post Jenny
-
-
The members driving like a bat out of hell, passing everything on the road & scaring the stuff out of the community are usually the young guys who need educated on proper driving practices.
-
-
I do drive my POV to the scene. I carry my PPE in a gear bag in my van. I don't need to take up space on the engine. I don't move as fast as I used to getting dressed in the middle of the night and I don't run lights and siren. Depending on where the call is, if it is between my home or where ever I am & the fire station & I happen to arrive first, I can do size up & report to the incoming officer or the first in engine. Often, I get vehicles moved or the inevitable crowd out of the way while the trucks are enroute.
We don't put up with responders driving irratically. The first time there is a complaint, the Chief will give a repromand. There usually isn't a second offense but when citizens have complained about members driving habits we have advised them to report them to the OHP. If they run lights & siren, the permit is issued through the state and can be revoked as well. Every so often we bring in an emergency vehicle operations class. We try to get members in those classes before the officer inspects the vehicle to request the permit.
In the past we did allow everyone to respond in POVs (the area was less populated with less traffic) until we ended up on scene a couple of times without a fire truck. Woops!! Truck drivers report to the station, check with the IC or senior officer to find out if an additional unit is needed and then at the request of the officer may drive their POV to the scene or more often told to stand by at the station. As a whole we don't encourage driving POVs. Our first out engine has a 5 man cab, the other trucks seat 2 or 3 people. If the call comes in as a fully envolved structure, or a structure in the rural area, everything rolls.
-
Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on November 1, 2008 at 5:04pm
-
Ted:
With very few exceptions, POVs are not allowed at the scene of an MVA. A structural fire is different, as we have a couple of officers who carry their gear with them, as they work just outside of our district. They have demonstrated very good driving skills, so yes; with very limited exceptions, POVs are not allowed. We have had a few who missed the truck, that, if needed, will respond from the station in POVs. But that is only if we need additional manpower. And at that point, they are covered under the umbrella portion of our insurance.
There was a time when the state troopers would yell at me for driving my vehicle, but we got that fixed very quickly. When I was chief, I went directly to the scene in my vehicle for a proper size up and assessment. My car was clearly marked and believe it or not, I drove with sensibility.
Good question.
TCSS.
Art
-
Comment by walt on November 1, 2008 at 4:23pm
-
I know here in our dept. the only persons that can go direct to the scene are the Chiefs and the Captns. Your right u can be sued for anything now days getting to where i don't like doing any type of ems calls. The cost is just not worht it but i love doing what i do and will keep doing it till i retire in 5 years.
-
-
Jenny:
You are absolutely correct.
We are not going to get a pass on making bad decisions that may result in lawsuits.
I have been an opponent of the use of POVs, due to the number of POV accidents and the liability it imposes upon fire departments.
And you all better check your insurance, because your coverage might not start until the member is AT the station. His conduct BEFORE he gets to the station might be his own.
IF a fire department ALLOWS for the use of POVs, then the fire department WILL be on the hook.
It's a bad practice that should be discouraged.
With regards to homeowners not happy with the "service" that they received? Maybe they should have considered fire protection when they were deciding where to live. This case is a little more complicated than the POV case, in that, the end condition can be justified by someone familiar with salvage and overhaul. Hopefully, the judge will have some knowledge as well.
Both good cases for review.
TCSS.
Art
-
-
I thought it sounded familiar when another member "Roy" posted it last night.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
You need to be a member of My Firefighter Nation to add comments!
Join My Firefighter Nation