Lawsuit accuses two FD's of Negligence

[helicopper 1,050]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,2489470.story

MADISON, Ind. - The chief of a volunteer fire company is suing two other departments over injuries he suffered while recovering the body of another firefighter from a burning house after he had been missing for 45 minutes.

This suit is being brought by another fire chief - an unusual twist to say the least.

What does everyone think of this?

[DR104 141]

45 minutes............unreasonable. No system for head count = negligent

"The suit also alleges the two departments did not make certain all firefighters used respirators, failed to maintain communications among firefighters and did not provide proper training" Unreasonable!

Ind Statute

http://law.justia.com/indiana/codes/title36/ar8/ch12.html

http://law.justia.com/indiana/codes/title36/ar8/index.html

They had system!!! They used his own truck to know he was at the fire!!!!!! What a joke for a FD!!!!!Hope the law suit will open some eyes over there.

[Bnechis 3,961]

They had system!!! They used his own truck to know he was at the fire!!!!!! What a joke for a FD!!!!!Hope the law suit will open some eyes over there.

Just because you have tags, does not mean you have a system. I have seen very few depts that have the ability to track members locations and time in the structure.

The British have tags on their SCBA that when you remove it, engages the pass alarm and starts a clock on the BA Control board.

This lawsuit will get tosed if his claim is based on them not know he was missing for 45 minutes, if it was almost 4 minutes and he still broke his ankle removing him what would the excuse be? What about 4 hours or 4 days...what did the time frame have to due with the injury?

[Guest MVFD334]

Please with the lawsuit. He's covered by his depts insurance, isnt he?

[FDNYDCHI 38]

If he got hurt on the scene of the fire he would be covered under works comp or LODI.

[texastom791 31]

The British have tags on their SCBA that when you remove it, engages the pass alarm and starts a clock on the BA Control board

So if I understand what your saying then the pass alarm is activated the whole time you are working inside?

Edited October 29, 2008 by texastom791

[helicopper 1,050]

Please with the lawsuit. He's covered by his depts insurance, isnt he?

I think the more fundamental issue is the lack of accountability for the FF inside the building not the injury.

[Raz 14]

So if I understand what your saying then the pass alarm is activated the whole time you are working inside?

Activated as in "turned on", not going into alert mode.

[texastom791 31]

Activated as in "turned on", not going into alert mode.

Oh alright I thought it was in alert mode the whole time that would be annoying.

[firecapt32 282]

even if everyone is covered in one way or another--- just the fact that they have to justify themselves in a court of law and the public can really get a glimpse of the true working of the fire department should be enough to scare firefighters and officers.

[jack10562 414]

I'm no lawyer, but as the plaintiff I'm not sure what the Chief's lawsuit expects to accomplish, since his injury is largely unrelated to the defendant department's accountability (or lack thereof) in the allegations being presented.

He can sue for his injury, but what do the circumstances surrounding the fatality have to do with that?

Now, if it was the family of the deceased firefighter who were pursuing this case as a wrongful death, then that would be a whole different story.