INIT915

LoHud Link How about seeking reimbursement from the parties that set these events into motion? It was not unforeseeable that going kayaking during a major hurricane would be without risks.

Would NFPA just govern fire apparatus? Seems police and others (DPW, sanitation, privately owned vehicles) would not fall under the auspices of the NFPA.

The Grand Larceny statutes in New York don't apply to this situation.

First, there doesn't seem to be much in terms of record related to non-governmental agencies. That being said, the initial calls for assistance are traditionally made to 911, a governmental instrumentality, therefore, that is who would be actionable. Due to the sovereign immunity traditionally granted government representatives, it seems unlikely the action would be transferable to a third party, i.e. a VAC or a private ambulance company. The immunity claim would be ineffective if the call was made direct to a non-governmental agency, then the protections afforded to municipalities could be eliminated. There, a "special relationship" as outlined in Sorichetti v City of New York (65 NY2d461), would not exist. Of course that is a hypothetical, pending the disposition of such a claim.

Actually, as having been discussed here in the past, in New York, as in most states, it is very, very difficult (but not completely impossible) to successfully file a civil suit due to a delayed response. See (for New York only): Laratro v. City of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 79 (2006) Cuffy v City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255 (1987) Kircher v City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251 (1989)

No mention of damage, so I will assume it was just not secured. To this day, I am so careful about locking my vehicle at a scene if I'm going to leave it running.

There should be consequences, but there's really no currently available avenue of enforcement, so that Policy Statement isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I'd hesitate to call that "progress." Now, a change in state law giving DOH some teeth, that would be progress.

That's not true. There's actually quite a few members of this Board who believe there is a problem.

Thanks, I couldn't locate where that was. Now, it says "goal." Not requirement, rule, regulation, law, etc, right?

NYSP only operates 2-man cars from 12a-5a. During the overnight, we have single cars that cover multiple counties where you wish your back-up was only 30 minutes away. Although, our compensation kind of makes up for it compared with VSP.

Link? I only see 11-01.

They may both need rescuing, but for entirely different reasons, which to me, does play a factor. And, I'm glad we are only taking about finanical costs, and not serious injury to any rescuers.

Well, refer to my previous post, but in general, I think a fairly commonsense standard may come down to reasonableness versus recklessness. Arguing the difference between trying to travel in the snow and undertaking truly unnecessary risks seems like an easier line for me to define in my own head then perhaps others.

In my opinion they are different. In your example, the victims didn't create the underlying emergency. They only made an arguable unwise decision to reenter a burning building. In the Croton incident, these victims knowingly choose to put themselves in a precarious position, completely unnecessarily. Again, as no hard and fast rules apply, we can only discuss opinions on these matters, but in my personal opinion, those two scenarios are in fact different. To equate returning to building to try to save people/pets/cherished belongings seems very different to looking for the next thrill.

I'm not advocating billing victims in general, but I also feel like there is a fairly obvious line. Whitewater rafting during such a monumental storm, for me personally, is a considerable foreseeable danger.

Well, I tend to agree, so I guess were both buffoons!

Every single NYSP vehicle is outfitted with vests and an AED.

Well, I give you credit for alluding to what others are loathe to admit. Effectiveness, efficiency, and expediency too often take a back seat to pride and tradition.

If that pot is consolidation/regionalization, maybe stirring it is worthwhile.

In general, your spot on. Anyone who looks at BuPlankTrose objectively would tend to concur.

Using an airport can have it's own implications if there is an active schedule. Using off-site locations makes this one less issue to contend with.

You've seen a ladder truck being struck by an aircraft while leaving quarters?

I like the new scheme. I thought the old one was a little too basic.

Just remember, it was public employee unions who caused the real estate market to implode and Wall Street to teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, so it's only right that they now pay the price... Wait, sorry, I think I confused public employee unions with THE PRIVATE SECTOR. My bad.

LOL. Note to Moderators: Can you add in an emoticon of a head banging against a wall. None of the current smiles available to me fit just right.