We recently have an early morning barn fire. We were 2nd due Engine Co in this area. About 10 minutes into the incident, the owner stated to let his 80' x 80' pole barn burn down. It was filled with hay inside and we were able to keep some from burning. Water supply was established from a hydrant about 1 mile away that filled tankers.
Never!!! There is no "choice". We put fires out. Period. An owner eager to "let it burn" may also be asking us to let the proof of arson be destroyed. "Officer, this man is the property owner. He is attempting to obstruct our operation. Would you please escort him to some place at a safe distance from here and see that he stays there."
I'm with you Padre. As well as with the other two Aussies who have posted (Lutan and Chris). Here, I think we'd be suggesting that the police discuss the matter with the owner - while we continued putting out the fire. And we'd probably be calling for the fire investigation team as well.
I agree with most of the comments so far...let the police deal with the "supposed homeowner". We are there to put out the fire.
Around here, if the homeowner wants to burn a structure, he needs to contact the fire department in advance so that we know what's going on. Otherwise, we put it out.
It could be a meth lab or a marijuana growing operation.
There could be a dead body in there and the fire was set to cover it up.
The insurance company wasn't contacted and will subrogate their losses against the fire department.
The property owner didn't have any insurance and his property taxes would be lowered with fewer buildings on the property.
The owner wasn't the owner, but the pissed off brother of the owner's soon-to-be ex-wife.
Yeah; I can think of a reason why we PUT FIRES OUT.
It makes things less complicated for us.
We are bound by our duty to suppress the fire; either offensively or defensively.
TCSS.
Art
In Kansas, it becomes our scene has soon as 911 is called. We get a call, we put it out, end of story. Same rules when there's an owner burning a pasture during a burn ban, we get a call, we put it out, even if they want it to burn. Now sometimes, if there's a few hay bales and it's easier to let them burn then keep pouring water on them, then we make the decision and thats what we do, but in the end, it's our decision on what we do, it's our scene. During a call, there is way too much going on for us to take the time to determine if they owe money on the building or not, etc. like Curtis said. Sorry,but as an IC I am not wasting my time on that. If they want to burn it later, have them contact the state and figure it out themselves, as for me, I'm going to do the job I was called to do, put it out. Im like Capt 723, in this rural area, by the time we get there, it's normally engulfed, or close to and we just save whatever we can and cool it off. But, there have been times when we've managed to save most of a building and the hay inside and I'm not going to take the time to figure out if the owner owes anything or not or determine he isn't claiming any insurance, I'm just going to do my job.
Each event is unique and as such, tactics will vary. If it is fully involved we may just let it burn. However, it won't be at the request of the property owner. I understand the other issues but where we live everyone lives off of well water. We dump 50000+ gallons on a burning barn full of hay we will absolutely ruin the drinking water supply for a lot of people for a long time. Unless I had knowledge of a crime or great suspicion thereof, we will likely go defensive.
If they tell us that we have to put it out. We are required to respond and duty to act. If the property owner says "let it burn, its insured" then we have to report and preserve the scene...
Well I don't know about letting it burn, but we might not be as aggressive putting it out. I've never had an owner tell us NOT to put it out, but they have sometimes said not make a big fuss.
Pole barns are relatively cheap to build (or rebuild). Keeping some of the hay from burning might be a good thing if; you are able to move it away from the fire and extinguishing agents. If you apply foam the way we do here, you might as well let it burn, because it is no good for livestock to eat. Then the farmer must figure out how to dispose of the soured hay.
A lot of farmers in my area do not insure the barn, but might insure the hay. The insurance companies usually write off all the hay regardless.
EXCELLENT QUESTION.....BUT , NO HE DOESNT HAVE THAT RIGHT.. IT'S OURS UNTIL WE SAY DIFFERENT. FORGET THE MONEY,INSURANCE ISSUES...PUT IT OUT AND LET THE SUITS FIGURE IT OUT
I thinks not.....unless he can prove that there is absolutely no insurance coverage on the property. Once you have been called and responded I feel you have a duty to act. Unless there are exposures that need to be saved IE. the farm house next to the pole barn, then I think that to just let it burn would open you up to a law suit from his insurance carrier for failure to act.
Permalink Reply by Marc on August 6, 2009 at 12:35pm
we have had this happen before....someone lite there own property on fire and wants it to burn. but our job is to save life and PROPERTY!!! no matter what. They may want it to burn....but we say "nope sorry, its our job to put the fire out"
so, yes they have right to tell us not to put the fire out, but do we listen to them, NOPE!