The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
IAFF Condemns Tennessee House Fire Policy
TODD FAULKNER
WPSD
Reprinted with Permission
PADUCAH - A local fire department's decision to let a home burn is attracting national attention and sparking national debate.
A firefighters group is lashing out against members of their own. The International Association of Fire Fighters is condemning the South Fulton Fire Department for their actions last week.
Fire crews refused to put out a house fire in Obion County, Tennessee, because the owner did not pay the $75 coverage fee. The Association's general president released a statement Tuesday on the city's policy of subscription fire service.
The IAFF statement reads, in part, "We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go."
The statement also reads, "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
Todd Cranick, son of Gene Cranick, tells Local 6 that his parents have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs. Cranick went on to say that the insurance plans on covering all damage and property losses. Right now, there is no fund set up to help the Cranick family.
The IAFF is headquartered in Washington, D.C., representing nearly 300,000 full-time professional firefighters and paramedics.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
You bescumber, and bescumber on the subject. So, based on your definition of a subscription being a contract, if the Fulton FD is out on a major incident, and are unable to respond out of the city limits, causing an undue delay, or no response at all for the RP, they can be sued for breach of contract? Laughable Ben. They are exempt from litigation. A private citizen under contract isn't.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Actually Herb, you're wrong again, and here's why...
Tennessee cities are not exempt from litigation.
Where did you dream that one up?
You are completely wrong on that. Here is the proof:
Tennessee Tort Liability Act
"Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), governmental entities are potentially liable for certain types of negligent acts committed by municipal employees. Under the Tennessee Code, a “governmental entity” is basically any political subdivision of the state of Tennessee. Thus, cities, counties, local school districts, public building authorities, volunteer fire departments, commissions, and the like are potentially liable for Tennessee personal injury claims."
South Fulton is one of those cities the Tort Act discusses.
Do you always laugh when you are wrong? It seems to be the norm in this debate.
I'm guessing that South Fulton has some contract language that specifies that if they are unavailable for a subscriber's fire, that they'll request mutual aid to cover the subscriber for them.
Do you always use big words which you are unable to use in context, or is bescumber the only one? Because, Herb, the bescumbering here was demonstrably on your part, unless you can show some proof that the Tennessee law that covers governmental liability somehow doesn't cover the City of South Fulton.
Dude, do a little research once in a while. It might help you shovel up after some of your more obvious bescumbering.
-
-
Ben, Again (and this addresses your Tort response), you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's what they can be liable for:
Typically, governmental immunity is removed under these conditions:
• Negligent operation by any employee of a motor vehicle or other equipment leading to motor vehicle accidents in Tennessee.
• Injuries caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway, owned and controlled by a governmental entity.
• Injuries caused by the dangerous or defective condition of any public building, structure, dam, reservoir or other public improvement owned and controlled by a governmental entity.
Where does it say a Volunteer FD can be sued, if it can't staff a unit or respond? LMIAO!
Seriously, I can't make this stuff up, especially when you send it to me.
-
-
Herb,
The web page cites a few examples of the liability limits. It didn't cover all eventualities.
And Herb, you used another Straw Man logical fallacy when you said "Where does it say a Volunteer FD can be sued, if it can't staff a unit or respond?" I didn't say that - YOU did.
What I actually said was "Tennessee cities are not exempt from litigation. Where did you dream that one up?" That's nothing like what you alleged I said.
I just refuted your bogus claim that Tennessee cities have governmental immunity.
They clearly do not.
Your "LMIAO" must stand for "Laughing My Ignorant A** Off" based upon your lack of knowledge on the subject.
And Herb, once again, you plagerized. You cut and pasted those comments directly from the web site without attribution.
Plagarism Definition
"1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another
author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner.
If you don't attribute your quotes, then you're plagarizing. That's dishonest, Herb, and it's not the first time you've done it. You've done it more than once, and I haven't seen you attribute anything that you've cut and pasted.
If you don't know how to attribute the work of others or how to post HTML links, just ask. There are many people here that would be glad to help you.
Thanks for showing us that you come nowhere close to practicing that "MORAL" that you shout so loudly. That's nothin' but hypocrisy.
-
-
In other words, Herb, you can't prove it.
It's not my job to do your homework for you.
-
-
You sent me the quotes, so you knew where they came from (and it was indicated in my post for others to see the origin), and now you're PO'd cuz I used them against you. Laugh My Irish A$$ Off (like that Benny?).
And I read about your comments about the good Doctor and his article. You're the expert Ben. I'm Ben, I don't agree, and it's my opinion that counts. Now the Doc is wrong too. Oh...and the PD officers are wrong about bribery. You're the expert Ben. DA Ben.
You sent a link trying to substantiate your claim that the FD could be sued, and now you say it didn't cover ALL eventualities? That's convenient Ben. You proved exactly what? That you are WRONG Ben!
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Guzzetta on
-
Might as well save your breath, buddy- some people cannot grasp that this guy's house was not in their fire district. If they had responded it would have been the equivalent to a department self-dispatching to calls outside of their district, which is just an extension of the "freelancer" mentality. Is it an unfortunate incident-Yes, does it go against the grain of the core values of the fire service- yes, is it horrible public policy-most likely...but the firefighters did not have the legal authority to take control of that incident and put the fire out. What if a firefighter was severly hurt or killed trying to save that house? I can only imagine the legal nightmare of trying to claim insurance for an injury/death relating to an incident that they legally were not supposed to be there for in the first place-- they would have that chief's head on a silver platter.
People can get all ethical and righteous with "moral obligations", but we live in a sue-happy world that has resulted in the need for extensive amounts of red tape and legal shieldings. Unfortunately, we dont live in a hypothetically utopian world dictated by "do whats ethical"-- this needs to be approached from a realist point of view. Dont get me wrong, I feel bad for the homeowner-- its a horrible situation, but there is no reason why anybody should be blaming members of the fire department, who were only adhering to the law and their charter/mission statement.
-
-
Alex knocks it out of the park!
-
-
Maybe because the Fire Chief reports to the City Manager???
The difference in your law enforcement analogy is that both the city and county residents are taxed for law enforcement protection, so there isn't any "rape fee".
The county residents are not taxed for fire protection, there is no county fire department, and the only black eye here is on the face of the property owner that didn't pay his subscription or even contact the fire department after he got free fire protection through his 3rd subscription notice.
-
Permalink Reply by Danny Lambert on
-
I'm sorry but letting someone home burn down because they didn't pay a fee is BS. WHETHER YOU ARE A PAID DEPARTMENT OR VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE A JOB TO DO. IF YOU LET SOMEONE LOOSE THEIR HOME OVER $75.00. THEN IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO HANG UP YOUR GEAR AND FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK. IF $75.00 WAS ALL IT TOOK TO SAVE A HOME I WOULD HAVE PAID IT OUT OF MY OWN POCKET. WE ARE A SMALL DEPARTMENT BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET SOME LOOSE THEIR HOME OVER SOME BS.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
when they found out they didnt pay the coverage fee.They should of left instead of watching it burn ! they would of known the media would have a field day !
They couldn't just leave Paul, because they had a duty to act FOR the neighbor who called and was concerned about exposures. Enforcing the policy put the FF's in a heck of a predicament, but they did have a duty to protect exposures, while allowing the non-paid subscriber's house burn.
-
-
YOU HAVE A JOB TO DO. IF YOU LET SOMEONE LOOSE THEIR HOME OVER $75.00. THEN IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO HANG UP YOUR GEAR AND FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK.
C'mon Danny. What really surprises me here is that after the countless responses here, we still get people like you coming in and saying the same crap that has been said countless times already, which in turn creates another response to say that your opinion is wrong.
Yes, Danny, you are wrong here. As FF's we follow orders, we don't (or shouldn't) freelance. There is NO duty to act for someone who doesn't pay a subscriber fee, the person, for whatever reason, decided fire protection wasn't a priority, the onus of fault lies with the owner. The area depts have been stating they can not keep providing fire protection for free and guess what Danny, fire protection like police, EMS, water, electricity, gas, DOES cost money. Are you saying the same crap when the power company shuts off electricity to non-paid subscribers?
Then there is the issue about "hanging up the gear"....for what? Following orders? Because there was no duty to act? No, the FF's were placed in a bad predicament because of the moronic policy enacted by the county govt and the moronic decision of the majority of residents in the county who decided that subscription is a the policy to go so as to keep taxes lower. No, Danny, it isn't the FF's who should be hanging up their gear, it is the fellow neighbors and residents who should be shamed for allowing such a stupid policy.
IF $75.00 WAS ALL IT TOOK TO SAVE A HOME I WOULD HAVE PAID IT OUT OF MY OWN POCKET.
Well, Danny, put your money where your mouth is. There are still plenty of unpaid subscribers in that county as well as other subscription zones. How about paying for their subscriptions then....oh and keep it up year after year, provide them with that "welfare". Do you have enough money to do so? After all that is the protection, not an after the fact issue, if you want to save a home, pay up them subscriptions.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
