The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
FDNY Firefighters File Suit Over Burns from Recalled Gloves
CHRISTINA CARREGA and JOHN DOYLE
The New York Post
Their hands were seared instead of safeguarded - and now two of New York's Bravest are suing the city for issuing them defective protective gloves.
Last February, the FDNY began to do a recall of the flawed Blaze Fighter model gloves after at least six smoke-eaters suffered second-degree burns on the back of their hands.
In each case, the gloves, first distributed by the FDNY last fall, were not damaged.
The two firefighters suing, Lt. Martin Kalwiss and a subordinate, Michael Galgano, both from Engine Company 236 in Brooklyn, allege their hands were burned while fighting a fire in the Woodhaven section of Queens last November because of "radiant heat penetrating through the back of the new gloves," according to court papers.
An FDNY spokesman referred questions about the gloves to officials at the city's Law Department, who would only confirm that they had received the suit.
Related
FDNY To Replace Gloves After Firefighters Suffer Burns
FireLaw: Firefighters Sue Over Defective Gloves
Copyright 2011 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
May 5, 2011
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
Why would they sue their employer?
It was the glove manufacturers fault, not the city. And yes, I know, the mfg is out of business. But still, this is just stupid.
I'm sure the city intentionally bought gloves that were inferior because they wanted worker's comp claims.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Mark,
Their employer issued them the gloves - who else would they sue?
-
-
And again, the employer bought it in good faith, believing it actually was NFPA compliant.
Do you really believe the city of NY intentionally issued defective PPE?
How about they don't sue anybody, because they are receiving WC for their injuries?
Go after the owners of the glove company personally, somebody had to know they were making inferior products.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew on
-
I BELIEVE (at least this is done in many governmental agencies) that the FDNY probably held a bid war with some glove companies - the lowest bid got the contract. The cheapest product doesn't make it the best one.
What it boils down to is the fact that thes gloves are part of our essential PPE. What if the firehood didn't work? What if the SCBA malfunctioned? With if a nozzle broke while firefighters were interior? Everything has to work in unison, and properly. If I were a correction officer and a jail cell gate lock broke, subsequently letting prisoners out, and they attacked me, I'd certainly sue my employer AND the manufacturer. The employer is responsible for inspecting their gear and equipment.
The lawsuit is justified. I don't think it was intentional, nor malicious action, by the FDNY. The lawsuit is set in place to send a message - Correct yourself and get better gear before someone else gets hurt. Think - this could have easily been worse.
-
-
You betcha, lawsuits answer every problem we have in America.
At least for the lawyers, they do.
-
Permalink Reply by andrew shapiro on
-
In fact, FDNY did not use a lowest bid criteria in the purchase of these gloves. The union local did in fact stifle the evaluation of imported products in this case. Wonder if they learned a lesson here that safety, performance and quality should be the overriding criteria for PPE eval and not "Made in ___".
In any event the lawsuit would seem to represent to a significant degree a seemingly "natural" adversarial replationship between the union local and it's employer, the City of New York.
FDNY management though did not need an actual lawsuit to prompt them to correct the problem as this issue had been addressed in a very prompt and serious manner many months before the lawsuit when the pattern of burns first became apparent.
Though you could certainly argue that the threat of a lawsuit in general can be a positive motivator for addressing PPE or other safety issues on the job.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
http://www.thelaw.com/guide/lawsuit/personal-injury-lawyers/
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/pay.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Group-uses-lawsuits-to-hel...
For a broader look at a somewhat specific example -
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/01/d...
Blaming lawyers for lawsuits is a little like blaming firemen for fires...don't ya think?
-
-
Jack -
You have to admit, there are an exorbitant amount of lawyers looking to prey on obscene lawsuits - most of which companies will settle. Lawyers get a nice chunk of the monetary compensation.
But many lawsuits are warranted. This one, for example, seems warranted. Firefighters should have to worry about extinguishing fires and preserving life and property, not about their gloves that should have been rigorously tested to perform in their working capacity.
-
-
Lets look at this case. The manufacturer is 100% at fault for providing defective pairs of their product. The defect was such that the performance features of the defective pairs (of which there were thousands) no longer met all the lab test requirements for protection as per the NFPA 1971 standard, even though the product had initially been properly tested, certified and believed to be in compliance at the time of the incidents. Again, there was no immediate reason or evidence to believe otherwise at the time of the incidents or during the entire purchasing process.
Additionally, this case involves a "latent" defect, meaning the defect in the product and the effect it has on performance is not obvious or apparent out of the box to the buyer (fire department) and in many or most situations may not be immediately apparent even during use in the field.
Under these circumstances what should be the liability of the purchasing fire department towards an employee injured using this product?
-
-
Just being a business owner and not a lawyer, I can answer what I think, but that won't get you far.
Thanks for putting it in a reasonable light.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
Mark, the only things a working class guy has to keep an even playing field with their employers are 1) a union, 2) a lawyer. You are mouthing that old crap that lawyers are bad, when you need one they are your best friend. The lawsuit will answer who is liable, if is the manufacturer or the city. It balances the field, gives the little guy a chance. In fact it is the American way, a protection we all need.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
