Woman wants city to pay for car damage caused by fire debris

[x635 4,066]

What do you guys think about this?

Woman wants city to pay for car damage caused by fire debris

By Mark Lisheron

AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

After attending a bon voyage lunch Jan. 23 for some friends who were moving to New Mexico, Ariana Vincent walked out of the Clay Pit restaurant on Guadalupe Street to the sounds of sirens, barked orders and high-powered water hoses.

The sound she missed was the crash of a wooden window frame falling on her 2003 Honda Civic. Austin firefighters broke out the frame while working to control an arson fire in the former Travis House on 18th and Guadalupe streets. By the time Vincent reached her car, which was parked in a metered spot in front of the burning building, the frame was on top of the hood.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news.../0520watch.html

[NWFDMedic 58]

Interesting story Seth. Wouldn't her car insurance pay for it though?

Either way, I think it brings to light an interesting topic. Personally, I think if the firefighters were acting to the initial acts of preserving life and property, then this is something the City and its firefighters shouldn't have to be responsible for because they are responding to a threat to the public's safety. If they were doing it after the fire was brought under control during routine overhaul, then I'd say they were negligent and liable.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

If the owner parked it in a fire lane or other unauthorized location then there should be no expectation of compensation. However, the car was described as legally parked so I would assume that there was reasonable expectation to believe that nothing could happen to the vehicle.

If an apparatus had hit the car regardless of emergency operations or not then the city must pay, how is this any different?

[Guest]

How about the buildings insurance? It was their property!

[x635 4,066]

I should point out, this lady had the minimum required insurance on her car......

[MFVFD179 0]

For the fact that this was arson, then arsonist should be liable (obviously if he/she is caught). My point is this; if someone dies in a fire due to the acts of an arsonist, the arsonist is charged with murder. Why should it be different if its a car (obviously less severe since nobody lost a life)? People pay enough taxes to make the city pay.

[Bnechis 3,961]

If the owner parked it in a fire lane or other unauthorized location then there should be no expectation of compensation. However, the car was described as legally parked so I would assume that there was reasonable expectation to believe that nothing could happen to the vehicle. If an apparatus had hit the car regardless of emergency operations or not then the city must pay, how is this any different?

Since when does a legal parking space come with a guarantee that nothing will happen to your car?

If a brick was thrown thru your window & your radio stolen, was it the PD's fault for not arresting the crook before?

What if the car was hit by a DWI, is that PD's fault for not getting him 1st.

Caulk it up to bad timing, parked in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is a big problem in America......stop blaming everyone else & take responsibility.

And if he/she had minimal insurance, took a chance to save money.....next time think twice

[Remember585 815]

If she wins this could be a nightmare for all of us in the future.

[jack10562 414]

I feel for her... but can't quite reach...

The money she would waste hiring a lawyer to fight the denial would ultimately go a l o n g way towards future insurance premiums for comprehensive damage coverage, no?

[abaduck 123]

Obviously she was parked in the collapse zone. Would she have preferred the department NOT fight the fire, and have the whole building come down on her car?! By my lights, the FD were doing exactly what they're sworn to do - *minimize* property loss, including her car! I think there's a cast-iron defence, even absent the Tort Claims laws.

[EFFD4091-MLSS emt 13]

Once again I always love the comments under any of these stories....

[ny10570 745]

Thats an interesting scenario. If a vehicle strikes a parked car during operation, then it is operator error and the city is liable. In this case I think she is SOL. It sucks, but if the arsonist had set her car on fire she'd be in the same place. Had a cardiac arrest in a home, guy let someone from his methadone clinic crash at his place. Guy arrested and we made a mess out of his place. It wasn't intentional but things we had to do to get him out and the damage done inside was expensive. I was recently subpoenaed on it and he lost the case. You feel for these people, but life sucks sometimes.

[FIRECHIEF63 55]

This lady needs to suck it up and deal with it...

If she was parked in the Fire Lane, she also should be ticketed with illegal parking there and be lucky that is all she gets.. Then shame on her for only having the minimum insurance, it is what it is and get's only what she gets...

What is to come next can we all start billing for the fuel we use to go to these calls for an emergency, can we bill for our services and time, etc..

Where will this crap ever stop ? ? ?

[WAS967 97]

This lady needs to suck it up and deal with it...

Frankly, no she shouldn't. Her car was damaged due to no fault of her own. She was in a legal spot and paid the meter like a good law abiding citizen. Why should she have to pay to fix the damage to her car? I won't blame the firefighters either. They have far bigger fish to fry than worry about where a window lands that was blown/knocked out due to whatever (tho I should hope they made sure nobody was standing below). She has the right to seek compensation for the repairs to her car. I'll leave it up to the legal eagles to figure out who is responsible to pay.

[ny10570 745]

WAS, what if it wasn't a window knocked out by firefighters but bricks falling off the building as a result of fire damage? I see the same party being responsible in either case and I'm pretty sure the property owner is safe since its a result of arson.

[mlcougar2001 8]

Frankly, no she shouldn't. Her car was damaged due to no fault of her own. She was in a legal spot and paid the meter like a good law abiding citizen. Why should she have to pay to fix the damage to her car? I won't blame the firefighters either. They have far bigger fish to fry than worry about where a window lands that was blown/knocked out due to whatever (tho I should hope they made sure nobody was standing below). She has the right to seek compensation for the repairs to her car. I'll leave it up to the legal eagles to figure out who is responsible to pay.

I disagree with you because everyone is required to have insurance for these unfortunate instances she chose to take the cheaper insurance and took the risk of not being covered. If she had full coverage we would all not be having this conversation. She chose to take a risk and she has to lie in the bed she made. Your insurance is there for a reason not just in case you do something wrong but also if something wrong happens to you, your protected.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

If an city maintenance worker had dropped a tool or debris on her car the city would have to pay, how is this any different.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

If she is parked in a LEGAL SPOT, then just chalk it up to bad luck. Just like someone said, it would be the same if a car smashed into hers and took off. If she chose to have the minimal amount of INS then it is her fault. Sometimes your the bug and sometimes your the windshield. Sounds like she was the bug on this date!!!!

[jayhalsey 6]

If she had full coverage we would all not be having this conversation.

If she had full coverage she would probably be going after the city for her deductible.

In this case, I agree that someone should pay for the damage to her car. If the fire is ultimately found to eb arson, and someone is convicted, that person should pay. In the meantime, perhaps the city should pay, and then collect from any persons possibly convicted.

[WAS967 97]

Good point on the going the cheap route with insurance. Didn't see the part about it being Arson. Either way I think we all agree that she doesn't really have a case against the FD who was just doing their job. If a jury DOES award her damages and tells the FD they need to pay up, then that Jury needs their heads examined.

[gamewell45 258]

Good point on the going the cheap route with insurance. Didn't see the part about it being Arson. Either way I think we all agree that she doesn't really have a case against the FD who was just doing their job. If a jury DOES award her damages and tells the FD they need to pay up, then that Jury needs their heads examined.

It should be an interesting test case. At this point she has nothing to lose by trying especially if she can get the case heard in small claims court.

[ny10570 745]

If an city maintenance worker had dropped a tool or debris on her car the city would have to pay, how is this any different.

Maintenance worker made a mistake, city pays. Firefighter drops a hook on the car, city pays. Window knocked out by firefighter, debris shot out by water stream, facade falls off building, etc are all expected risks in the course of firefighting that are the responsibility of the person who is at fault for the fire. Same for the people with the smoke and water damage. The dept isn't liable, but the person who caused the fire can be sued in civil court.