The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Families of Charleston’s Fallen Meet with State to Investigate Negligence
BRUCE SMITH
Associated Press Writer
CHARLESTON, S.C. - The father of a firefighter who died in a 2007 furniture store blaze that killed nine firefighters says families will meet with state fire investigators next week to discuss whether criminal negligence was involved in the deaths.
Related
"We want justice, not vengeance," Mike Mulkey said on Monday. His son Louis died in the June 18, 2007 blaze at the furniture store in Charleston.
Mulkey and the family of fallen firefighter William Hutchinson, also concerned the city police department had no business investigating its fire department, met with local prosecutor Scarlett Wilson last fall.
She agreed to pass along to State Law Enforcement Division investigators material brought in by the families about the training and the tactics used in fighting the fire, Mulkey said.
In late 2008, Charleston Police presented Wilson the results of an 18-month study into the fire compiled with the help of SLED and agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
That report has not been released. At the time Wilson said there seemed to be no indication the fire was intentionally set but that she would look at possible issues of negligence.
Wilson did not immediately return a phone call from The Associated Press on Monday.
Wilson has said she is awaiting another report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md., before making any final decision on criminal charges. That report, expected by early summer, involves complex computer modeling on how the fire spread.
A third report, compiled by outside experts hired by the city, faulted the city fire department for inadequate training and outdated tactics but also found the fire would have been confined to a loading dock had there been sprinklers in the store. It did not speak to criminal negligence.
Mulkey said members of at least two of the victims' families as well as firefighters who were on the scene that night will meet with SLED investigators on March 25 in Columbia.
Mulkey said the fire department has made great strides since the disaster.
"The people that caused this problem have all been replaced," he said. "I'm not downgrading the Charleston Fire Department. What I am saying is that just like in the Navy where I spent 20 years in nuclear-powered submarines, you are accountable for your actions."
Families of eight of the fire victims sued 30 people and companies, including the furniture store, and various furniture and equipment manufacturers. The plaintiffs have now settled with 20 defendants for $6.8 million, though there has been no settlement with the store and no trial date set.
Mike Mulkey was not among those who sued.
The families of all nine victims also received between $640,000 and $775,000 each from workers' compensation and a public fund for the firefighter families.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Associated Press Writer
CHARLESTON, S.C. - The father of a firefighter who died in a 2007 furniture store blaze that killed nine firefighters says families will meet with state fire investigators next week to discuss whether criminal negligence was involved in the deaths.
Related
- SC Families Meeing with State on Fatal Fire
- Charleston Commanders Could be Charged with Negligence
- SLED Looks for Signs of Negligence
- SLED Reviews Records
Mulkey and the family of fallen firefighter William Hutchinson, also concerned the city police department had no business investigating its fire department, met with local prosecutor Scarlett Wilson last fall.
She agreed to pass along to State Law Enforcement Division investigators material brought in by the families about the training and the tactics used in fighting the fire, Mulkey said.
In late 2008, Charleston Police presented Wilson the results of an 18-month study into the fire compiled with the help of SLED and agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
That report has not been released. At the time Wilson said there seemed to be no indication the fire was intentionally set but that she would look at possible issues of negligence.
Wilson did not immediately return a phone call from The Associated Press on Monday.
Wilson has said she is awaiting another report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md., before making any final decision on criminal charges. That report, expected by early summer, involves complex computer modeling on how the fire spread.
A third report, compiled by outside experts hired by the city, faulted the city fire department for inadequate training and outdated tactics but also found the fire would have been confined to a loading dock had there been sprinklers in the store. It did not speak to criminal negligence.
Mulkey said members of at least two of the victims' families as well as firefighters who were on the scene that night will meet with SLED investigators on March 25 in Columbia.
Mulkey said the fire department has made great strides since the disaster.
"The people that caused this problem have all been replaced," he said. "I'm not downgrading the Charleston Fire Department. What I am saying is that just like in the Navy where I spent 20 years in nuclear-powered submarines, you are accountable for your actions."
Families of eight of the fire victims sued 30 people and companies, including the furniture store, and various furniture and equipment manufacturers. The plaintiffs have now settled with 20 defendants for $6.8 million, though there has been no settlement with the store and no trial date set.
Mike Mulkey was not among those who sued.
The families of all nine victims also received between $640,000 and $775,000 each from workers' compensation and a public fund for the firefighter families.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Mackie on
-
Goes to show, if you are going to be an incident commander, you had better know your stuff!! Someone has to be in charge of every incident. That is a given! It is imperative that the person making the decisions on scene, be trained and trained some more, and have the qualifications it takes to be in charge - do we agree? This job has got enough inherent dangers. We should not add to them by inserting into the fray, inexperienced, untrained, or worse, the ego-maniac type persons who THINK they know because they took a course and have a couple of years fighting some fires. This particular incident happened in a career dept. That does not mean it won't or can't happen to the small fire dept.
BE THE BEST and stay safe k
-
Permalink Reply by Curt Varone on
-
Brian and Jim
There is nothing to limit liability for criminal offenses to fire chiefs, or ego-maniac type persons. Firefighters and company officers can be held liable for the deaths of other firefighters. That to me is pretty scary. You go to work, do your level best with what abilities you have - and then are second guessed by angry family members who demand "justice", which they interprete as you going to jail... And then there is the civil liability part.
We've been talking about this at Fire Law http://firelaw.typepad.com/fire-law/
-
-
Curt
I totally agree. That is my point. We go to work and do the best job we can and its still not enough to avoid lawsuits sometimes. I was simply saying, particularly in smaller depts. that even though someone has to be in charge, don't be so quick to jump into that position until you have years of experience and as much training and education as possible (which never ends really). Guys with only a few years experience, and no training in IMS really should re-think the title of Captain or Chief.
I think I expressed my points wrong, and it could be taken the wrong way.
You said it nicely (and I should have said it) "Firefighters and company officers can be held liable for the deaths of other firefighters. That to me is pretty scary." Sometimes the best of your abilities with what you have is not enough.
-
-
OK Brian. We are one the same page! I agree that many guys want to be in charge but don't realize the responsibility that goes along with it. Some guys seem to think the criminal liability issue is simply a problem for the chief - but firefighters can, have been and will continue to be, the target of the wrath of angry family members hell-bent on justice. In fact - probably the biggest area is concern is driving fire apparatus!
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
I really don't think that some actually know the responsibility when establishing command, and what comes with it! It really starts well before you're the Incident commander. What I'm referring to is the training, the knowledge, sog's, and the experience.
I've witness some that lock up and have a look on their face like, oh---xxit what the hell do I do now?? Then their are some, looking for the officer that usually has the command, to bail him out! One way to become an affective Incident commander is to be an aid to one for a period of time.
Ask your Chief once you've completed the training if you can become an aid and observe, listen and be patient. You will learn how to orchestrate a scene to run it safe, and to have a positive outcome at the end.
"Everyone comes home"
-
-
Excellent Rusty.
I was lucky enough to be put in charge of a simulation during one of our regular fire practices. I think the chief threw in some obsticles, such as guys doing things wrong deliberately to see how I would correct it. It really opened my eyes that very first time. I knew right then and there that I was NOT yet ready to be in command. BUT, I would be some day. Come hell or high water, I was going to be an effective leader. There were lots of growing pains. Don't let anyone tell you it's easy. College and university courses, and lots of hand on firefighting experience in the mean time, and lots of guidance and trust by the chief, and it finally came much easier.
These lawsuit crazy days might well scare potentially good leaders away. I certainly hope not.
Thanks Rusty for making an excellent point. We all never do stop learning do we?
-
Permalink Reply by Trainer on
-
I keep running through my mind a couple of issues on this. They keep mentioning sprinklers, was this building required to have them?
I also don't think this is an operational training problem, but a lack of moving the department as a whole to modern techniques and use of technology, in other words failure to change. I have to admit I have not read all the published material on this incident, didn't have to , when I read about the water relay and attack lines that was as far as I needed to go, these guy's didn't stand a chance, pissin in the wind. Problems here go way beyond the line officer, all the way to the top.
-
Permalink Reply by larry jenkins on
-
Sprinklers required or not, it really doesn't make any difference. The company officers and the IC should have known whether they were there or not. I've read the reports and they made lots of mistakes. Venting at the wrong location, size of attack lines, crews were seperated. It's a shame, but we as the fire service don't make drastic changes until something like this happens (crisis management). It will happen again and again. We make mistakes everyday but if nothing negitive happens then were ok, right? Wrong, we need to train everyday. Not sit in front of a computer and take a on-line class from the NFA or read a book on tactics. Yes, these help but real experience in the streets is the key. If you are an officer, how would you live with yourself, knowing your decision killed somebody. Not a civilian but a brother firefighter. Who cares if the family sues, that should be the least of your worries, you killed someone.......Don't take the position if your not ready to handle it.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
