Fire Dept Liability

[ny10570 745]

So anyone who makes it past the first week of EMT or Medic training gets at the very least a cursory introduction into liability, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, and any other feasances lurking in the courts. Police are also well informed on the pitfalls and repercussions of not doing their job properly along these lines. It has been my experience that as long as the fire goes out firefighters tend to feel they did a good enough job. Often critiques end with, "The fire went out, everyone went home, enough said." Is there a precedent for an FD being held liable for excessive damage? I'm specifically talking about malfeasance. An action that causes harm.

Anyone who's been around for a few minutes has been at that job where some idiot went around breaking windows they didn't have to or the dept that extinguished the ragging wastepaper basket fire with dual 2.5" handlines. Yes, firefighting is by nature destructive and the risk of trying to preserve a few boards of sheetrock is absolutely not worth the resulting damage from a rekindle. I bring this up after witnessing discussion between a chief and young officer where the chief was trying to explain why the clearly unnecessary hole that was cut into the gorgeous slate roof with antique copper flashing was, "An F***ing embarrassment" to the dept and his ability as a firefighter. Nothing was ever mentioned about liability. Everything was about ego and professional appearances. Not looking like a F***shop was of paramount concern.

According to the medical standard of malfeasance, since any firefighter with similar training and experience would know that a hole in the roof of a 2 story home experiencing a small, self vented, room and contents fire is unnecessary and did not serve to assist in firefighting operations by the time he began operating on the roof this firefighter and by extension his dept could be liable.

[CTFF 65]

I think in this situation it would be up the the insurance to file suit. I doubt you'll see that happen, it's cheaper to pay the claim the pursue this in court.

Where was the IC when all this roof work was going on?

[thomaspaine 1]

Would I find my doctor at fault if while removing a toe, they removed the whole foot as well- if only because they were there, and they could, and were 'practicing aggressively'? Aggressive and incongruent fire suppression is no skin off our back- skills practice even. But the homeowners in our wake are left with avoidable mess and expense.

Incident Command is not, and should not, be where personal and professional responsibility regarding behavior ends. Potentiating damage from what might have easily been a straightforward home repair goes against the principles of introductory fire suppression. For example- turning a can job, like a small outlet fire, into two inches of water through three floors of hardwood floors, furniture, and belongings. Salvage is not included in fireground tactics for public relations sake. It is the intervention used to reach a common goal- "To protect life AND property."

If this flooded home is the outcome, then what purpose did the fire department serve at this scene?

[ny10570 745]

I think in this situation it would be up the the insurance to file suit. I doubt you'll see that happen, it's cheaper to pay the claim the pursue this in court.

Where was the IC when all this roof work was going on?

Don't know where he was when it happened. But he was certainly there after the fact. Wasn't there when the hole was cut.

[INIT915 1,119]

So anyone who makes it past the first week of EMT or Medic training gets at the very least a cursory introduction into liability, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, and any other feasances lurking in the courts. Police are also well informed on the pitfalls and repercussions of not doing their job properly along these lines. It has been my experience that as long as the fire goes out firefighters tend to feel they did a good enough job. Often critiques end with, "The fire went out, everyone went home, enough said." Is there a precedent for an FD being held liable for excessive damage? I'm specifically talking about malfeasance. An action that causes harm.

Anyone who's been around for a few minutes has been at that job where some idiot went around breaking windows they didn't have to or the dept that extinguished the ragging wastepaper basket fire with dual 2.5" handlines. Yes, firefighting is by nature destructive and the risk of trying to preserve a few boards of sheetrock is absolutely not worth the resulting damage from a rekindle. I bring this up after witnessing discussion between a chief and young officer where the chief was trying to explain why the clearly unnecessary hole that was cut into the gorgeous slate roof with antique copper flashing was, "An F***ing embarrassment" to the dept and his ability as a firefighter. Nothing was ever mentioned about liability. Everything was about ego and professional appearances. Not looking like a F***shop was of paramount concern.

According to the medical standard of malfeasance, since any firefighter with similar training and experience would know that a hole in the roof of a 2 story home experiencing a small, self vented, room and contents fire is unnecessary and did not serve to assist in firefighting operations by the time he began operating on the roof this firefighter and by extension his dept could be liable.

Is this a legal opinion? If so, what is the actionable cause in your example?

[ny10570 745]

I guess the actionable cause would be the damage to the roof. Assuming one can prove the hole was not necessary and the firefighter should have known that.

[wraftery 1,275]

Don't know where he was when it happened. But he was certainly there after the fact. Wasn't there when the hole was cut.

I'm guessing here that 10570 is speaking of a Chief who eventually became IC for this incident.. However, there should have been an IC from beginning to end of this incident, starting with the first person to arrive, and ending with the last person to leave.

The point is that someone was in charge (or should have been) when the roof was opened. The IC very well could have been the 1st due Engine Officer at the end of the attack line.

Somebody once told me his Department's policy is "Do nothing unless you are ordered to." I thought it was stupid until he explained what it meant:

An order is an order

SOP?...an order

Want to open a roof? Ask. You'll get an order, Yes or No

It started making sense to me. Too bad I didn't get a chance to discuss it further.

[ny10570 745]

Sorry I meant "I wasn't there when the hole was cut", but you make an excellent point. Have this Guy at any point said something about going to the roof, venting the roof, etc this could have been avoided. Even beyond damaging the roof, why put yourself or others at risk working on this roof for no reason.

[dwcfireman 656]

If I had to say, it sounds like a breakdown in communication between the IC and whoever was on the vent team. They were probably told to vent, but not how to vent. Some people will cut the roof off the house while others will go around and open a few windows. It's a problem of perception, and the only remedy is to specify your orders.

Going back to the original question, I find it quite relieving that someone finally asked the question.. The simple answer is, YES, firefighters can be hold liable for action on the fire scene. From a legal standpoint, the person liable is the Incident Commander. Since the IC makes the decisions, he's the one who'll get in trouble, that is if the department throws him/her under the bus. As far as what legal actions or disciplinary measures would be taken upon that IC, I couldn't tell you (I'm not a lawyer). And it's a shame, as a fire officer I don't know all of the specifics. It's one of those things the state tends to leave out of Firefighter I, Officer I, etc. You would think that there would be some instruction on the matter. It was mentioned at the beginning of this thread that they teach the legality of the job for both police and EMS, so why not the fire side?

[Dinosaur 844]

If I had to say, it sounds like a breakdown in communication between the IC and whoever was on the vent team. They were probably told to vent, but not how to vent. Some people will cut the roof off the house while others will go around and open a few windows. It's a problem of perception, and the only remedy is to specify your orders.

Going back to the original question, I find it quite relieving that someone finally asked the question.. The simple answer is, YES, firefighters can be hold liable for action on the fire scene. From a legal standpoint, the person liable is the Incident Commander. Since the IC makes the decisions, he's the one who'll get in trouble, that is if the department throws him/her under the bus. As far as what legal actions or disciplinary measures would be taken upon that IC, I couldn't tell you (I'm not a lawyer). And it's a shame, as a fire officer I don't know all of the specifics. It's one of those things the state tends to leave out of Firefighter I, Officer I, etc. You would think that there would be some instruction on the matter. It was mentioned at the beginning of this thread that they teach the legality of the job for both police and EMS, so why not the fire side?

Damn straight FF can be held liable for their actions.

Liability can reach far above and far below the chief or IC whatever their rank. From a legal standpoint a lot of people can be liable so the prudent course is training, training, training and adherence to your agency policies and procedures. They're going to ask what your ventilation policy is and ask you to produce it. When you say you dont have one theyre going to make you look stupid or incompetent or both on the stand even though most agencys probably dont have a written policy on ventilation.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Dinosaur

[INIT915 1,119]

I guess the actionable cause would be the damage to the roof. Assuming one can prove the hole was not necessary and the firefighter should have known that.

That would not qualify as an actionable cause for the purpose of a civil suit.

[INIT915 1,119]

If I had to say, it sounds like a breakdown in communication between the IC and whoever was on the vent team. They were probably told to vent, but not how to vent. Some people will cut the roof off the house while others will go around and open a few windows. It's a problem of perception, and the only remedy is to specify your orders.

Going back to the original question, I find it quite relieving that someone finally asked the question.. The simple answer is, YES, firefighters can be hold liable for action on the fire scene. From a legal standpoint, the person liable is the Incident Commander. Since the IC makes the decisions, he's the one who'll get in trouble, that is if the department throws him/her under the bus. As far as what legal actions or disciplinary measures would be taken upon that IC, I couldn't tell you (I'm not a lawyer). And it's a shame, as a fire officer I don't know all of the specifics. It's one of those things the state tends to leave out of Firefighter I, Officer I, etc. You would think that there would be some instruction on the matter. It was mentioned at the beginning of this thread that they teach the legality of the job for both police and EMS, so why not the fire side?

How, in the same post, can you say that the IC is liable, and then say you don't know what legal actions could be taken? You said he is liable, no?

In general, not directed to any of the members who posted here, but that's one of the problems with our country. Their answer is always “sue, sue, sue!!!” But when asked on what legal grounds, you always got the same answer. "I don't know." If you’re going to say someone is civilly liable, please back it up.

[INIT915 1,119]

Damn straight FF can be held liable for their actions.

Liability can reach far above and far below the chief or IC whatever their rank. From a legal standpoint a lot of people can be liable so the prudent course is training, training, training and adherence to your agency policies and procedures. They're going to ask what your ventilation policy is and ask you to produce it. When you say you dont have one theyre going to make you look stupid or incompetent or both on the stand even though most agencys probably dont have a written policy on ventilation.

Please be specific. Under what law or legal theory?

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Please be specific. Under what law or legal theory?

As a FF/EMS provider I can be sued for negligence, battery, abandonment (although that may be into negligence) off the top of my head.

As a driver of a responding apparatus involved in a PIAA?

Edited April 22, 2011 by bvfdjc316

[INIT915 1,119]

As a FF/EMS provider I can be sued for negligence, battery, abandonment (although that may be into negligence) off the top of my head.

As a driver of a responding apparatus involved in a PIAA?

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with venting (an expensive) roof that arguably did not need to be vented?

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with venting (an expensive) roof that arguably did not need to be vented?

Absolutely nothing, I thought you were just asking for times we could be sued.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I think a decent lawyer could easily prove that the "over ventilation" was not the IC's fault or whoever order it, but a failure of the general training of most firefighters, nationally.

This line intensionally written to dramatize the effect of the first!

I say this because we spend so much time on vertical ventilation training in Firefighter 1&2 programs that it has become a checklist item for lesser experienced IC's and FD's. As was just pointed out to our State Chief's in an excellent presentation by Peter Van Dorpe, Training Chief of Chicago FD, we spend two hours on fire behavior and then tons of contact hours on many other topics, while the actual true understanding of fire dynamics would better help all of us understand most of the basic tasks far better. Any person coming up in the 80's and 90's was subjected to the fears of backdraft at every drill. The same guy is now an IC and his brain muscle memory says "VENT HIGH!" when he/she has nothing else to fall back on. Clearly ventilation and fire attack are far more important topics than fire behavior or dynamics, right? Not quite.

Again if you haven't had the chance to look at the FDNY, Chicago, NIST, UL, and others work on fire dynamics, legacy vs. modern construction, PPV, and others you should. We now are able to use quantifiable science to help us make better decisions about the fireground. http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/

[Alpinerunner 61]

I'm not saying FFs should not be held to some sort of liablity standard, but I think the reason there is such a difference between EMS liability and FF liability is two-fold.

The first issue is due to the fact that firefighting is less of a science than the human body. The has been a lot of quantifiable studies about how the human body works and what helps and what hurts. For instance, giving nitro when the systolic BP is less than 100 is known to be bad. Giving oral glucuse to a patient without a patent airway is known to be bad. Giving O2 is (almost) never bad, and the times it is bad are clearly defined and understood through physiology (infants and chronic emphysema).

It's less of a hard line between when to vent and not to vent, and when to open the walls and when not to, and how much water is necessary.

The second issue is simply that the human body is more valuable than property, and the effects of negligence can be permanent.

Again, I'm not saying we can't improve, I'm just stating why I think the rules are different currently.

[wraftery 1,275]

Regarding Liability, let me just say that this is the USA. You can sue almost anyone for almost anything.

You can win with a ridiculous premise (MacDonalds sold me a hot cup of coffee that I spilled in my lap while driving).

You can lose with a perfectly sound argument (FDNY has spent millions to recruit minorities but still can't hire off the list).

It's all up to a jury who could be made up of those loonies that you meet every day on those "strange" calls, or by a judge who has been out of the mainstreamm of society for so long that he doesn't have a clue.

Every lawsuit has three winners: The guy that won...and two lawyers.

That makes "Are you liable" a rhetorical question.

[dwcfireman 656]

How, in the same post, can you say that the IC is liable, and then say you don't know what legal actions could be taken? You said he is liable, no?

In general, not directed to any of the members who posted here, but that's one of the problems with our country. Their answer is always "sue, sue, sue!!!" But when asked on what legal grounds, you always got the same answer. "I don't know." If you're going to say someone is civilly liable, please back it up.

Sorry, INIT915, but I'm not familiar with what legal actions can be taken against a FF or IC held liable for damages. Like I said in my original post, I am not a lawyer, nor have I had the proper legal training behind this. I do not know what the liability laws specifically state about firefighters, and I'm not going to spew BS about something that I don't know. The original question in this forum was whether a FF or IC or a department can be held liable. I said "yes" with a few extra words. Therefore, I answered the question. Don't dissect an answer because you don't like the way it's worded.

[INIT915 1,119]

Sorry, INIT915, but I'm not familiar with what legal actions can be taken against a FF or IC held liable for damages. Like I said in my original post, I am not a lawyer, nor have I had the proper legal training behind this. I do not know what the liability laws specifically state about firefighters, and I'm not going to spew BS about something that I don't know. The original question in this forum was whether a FF or IC or a department can be held liable. I said "yes" with a few extra words. Therefore, I answered the question. Don't dissect an answer because you don't like the way it's worded.

It has nothing to do with "liking how it's worded". It's a dangerous practice, and has been addressed multiple times here on this board, that you should refrain from making statements of a legal nature if you can't back them up. There are many members of this board who use this board as a learning tool, and to be fed misinformation is a dangerous and bad practice, and it does this board, all the members, and yourself a significant disservice.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I have a different spin to the question...say your sent to a haz mat call and fail to protect the public or fellow responders? A member goes rummaging through a bag full of a unknown liquid and the plastic bottle lets loose because the material is off gassing and hurts the member doing the wrong thing...is the safety officer or IC responsible for letting it happen? I say yes. Or you fail to evacuate a commercial building within the isolation zone recommended area and they get sick or injured...then what? I still say yes...it is a failure no..its negligent for not following standard and accepted practices and you should be held liable.

[abaduck 123]

I have a different spin to the question...say your sent to a haz mat call and fail to protect the public or fellow responders? A member goes rummaging through a bag full of a unknown liquid and the plastic bottle lets loose because the material is off gassing and hurts the member doing the wrong thing...is the safety officer or IC responsible for letting it happen? I say yes.

That's a bit too general Tom... it would depend how the call was dispatched and what orders the member was given. Were they supposed to be in offensive or defensive mode? The way you state 'goes rummaging through' makes it sound more like they were freelancing or at least acting beyond the scope of their orders (and/or scope of training)... in which case I can't see any liability attaching to IC or SO. I don't recall the 'rummaging' technique being part of hazmat tech training... and I don't recall getting up close and personal with a known hazmat situation being part of defensive mode hazmat ops training...

In general though yes, you do have a point... if an IC orders a member to do something they *know or should have known* is beyond their training or qualification, that sounds to me like something for which they could well be liable.

Mike

[Bnechis 3,961]

I don't recall the 'rummaging' technique being part of hazmat tech training...

1910.120(q)(6)(iii)

Hazardous materials technicians are individuals who respond to releases or potential releases for the purpose of stopping the release. They assume a more aggressive role than a first responder at the operations level in that they will approach the point of release in order to plug, patch or otherwise stop the release of a hazardous substance. They are allowed to rummage around in the material once liability waivers have been signed.*

*New amendment added to the law based on testimony received from EmtBravo

[wraftery 1,275]

1910.120(q)(6)(iii)

Hazardous materials technicians are individuals who respond to releases or potential releases for the purpose of stopping the release. They assume a more aggressive role than a first responder at the operations level in that they will approach the point of release in order to plug, patch or otherwise stop the release of a hazardous substance. They are allowed to rummage around in the material once liability waivers have been signed.*

*New amendment added to the law based on testimony received from EmtBravo

I beg to differ. Rummagers are above the awareness level but below the operations level although they think they are smarter than ops level people.

President Obama is trying his best to increase the number of rummager teams across the nation. He heeps raising taxes and national debt. He got us a new health care plan and collective bargaining will soon be a thing of the past. He's ignored the highest gas prices ever.

I think that in less than a year all cops, FF's and EMT's will be rummagers too.

[dwcfireman 656]

It has nothing to do with "liking how it's worded". It's a dangerous practice, and has been addressed multiple times here on this board, that you should refrain from making statements of a legal nature if you can't back them up. There are many members of this board who use this board as a learning tool, and to be fed misinformation is a dangerous and bad practice, and it does this board, all the members, and yourself a significant disservice.

Bite your tongue....I never misled anyone, and I didn't bring up any "misinformation." Apparently all you're concerned about is that I can't back it up. I've stated TWICE now that I know that there are legal ramifications if a firefighter or IC decides to go "too far," and TWICE I've stated that I don't know what the legal penalties are because I have not had that training. Other members of this forum have stated to use common sense and do what is applicable per situation, which I agree with. And I do understand that users on this site use some of this information as a learning tool. What I disagree with is people like you who just try to call people out and make a big stink of it. If you know the answer, then enlighten us! Otherwise, keep your comments to yourself. I was trying to help answer the question question the best I could and all you seem to want to do is pounce on the first person who answers the question "wrong." If you are so deeply concerned about it, read the NYS malfeasance laws that pertain to firefighters.

[INIT915 1,119]

Bite your tongue....I never misled anyone, and I didn't bring up any "misinformation." Apparently all you're concerned about is that I can't back it up. I've stated TWICE now that I know that there are legal ramifications if a firefighter or IC decides to go "too far," and TWICE I've stated that I don't know what the legal penalties are because I have not had that training. Other members of this forum have stated to use common sense and do what is applicable per situation, which I agree with. And I do understand that users on this site use some of this information as a learning tool. What I disagree with is people like you who just try to call people out and make a big stink of it. If you know the answer, then enlighten us! Otherwise, keep your comments to yourself. I was trying to help answer the question question the best I could and all you seem to want to do is pounce on the first person who answers the question "wrong." If you are so deeply concerned about it, read the NYS malfeasance laws that pertain to firefighters.

The "NYS malfeasance laws"?

I will continue to ask anyone who posts information regarding the law that is either unclear or has no basis in fact to be more specific. If your uncomfortable with that, feel free to avoid posting until you have had time to research the matter thoroughly, and can, in good conscious, know that what your offering the other members of this board is solid.

[helicopper 1,050]

It is site policy that if you post about a law or legal precedent that you accompany it with a link to the law in question and/or the case law being referenced.

It has been brought up several times in this thread alone and people continue to comment on laws or legal conditions with no references to the applicable statute. Don't get annoyed when someone points this out.

[vtach39680 23]

Well I will just ask questions and here and not state or site any legal code or law.

I first have to ask are we talking about criminal liability or civil liability in this discussion? if it is civil, well anyone can sue anyone at any time, the question becomes do you spend the money to fight it or let the insurance companies just settle?

[dwcfireman 656]

It is site policy that if you post about a law or legal precedent that you accompany it with a link to the law in question and/or the case law being referenced.

It has been brought up several times in this thread alone and people continue to comment on laws or legal conditions with no references to the applicable statute. Don't get annoyed when someone points this out.

I was not aware of that policy. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. The tone of your post actually made me feel good to know that there are people here who are trying to help.