NJ Fire Co. Held Responsible for Man's Injuries

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Firehouse.com

[ny10570 745]

I hate these firehouse.com articles. They spend zero effort on digging up details or any sort of truth with these stories. The find an exciting headline from a local paper and run with it. Why was the fire company found negligent? If the reward is public, then the judges decision should be part of that record. What did they actually do to mitigate the situation?

So in a few minutes of Googling, it appears that the victim and his wife were home when the wires came down. After checking the scene the FD turned it over to the utility, NJP&L. Around that time the couple attempted to leave their driveway and came into contact with the live wire. Their argument was the the FD never notified them that a hazard was present on their property. This award is absolutely getting reduced if not reversed upon appeal. Look for a final settlement of no more than medical expenses plus lost wage. Pain and suffering without gross negligence or depraved indifference is a tough sell.

Edited November 10, 2011 by ny10570

[IzzyEng4 427]

A wise Public Defender told me "You can sue anyone, anywhere, anytime, and anyhow." It sucks but that's the truth. If the wires were still live when they left and the necessary precautions were not taken and proved they were not, then unfortunately we lose. Its all about CYA today. Unfortunately human stupidity doesn't holdup in a court today.

Edited November 10, 2011 by IzzyEng4

[ny10570 745]

I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions. 0% liability on the victim is wrong. But if you have a live primary down on someone's driveway, wouldn't you go tell them?

[newsbuff 286]

I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions. 0% liability on the victim is wrong. But if you have a live primary down on someone's driveway, wouldn't you go tell them?

He was not home at the time according to the article. He drove home, and got out of his car.

But here's the better question. I know in the department I used to be with, we would relay to dispatch that the scene was "caution taped off", and it would be written in the narrative section of our documentation. This written information no longer holds up in court?

Edited November 10, 2011 by newsbuff

[JohnnyOV 2]

So does this mean that for every wires down call a circle of caution tape, spanning 2 telephone poles, needs to be secured?

[Alpinerunner 61]

So does this mean that for every wires down call a circle of caution tape, spanning 2 telephone poles, needs to be secured?

For our wire down calls, we usually wait until CL-P gets there. However, in the case of storms, where we will have 10-20 wires calls pending, that's not possible. Most departments caution-tape and leave, and the next car to come through will invariable drive though the caution tape. In the legal system, if this first person gets injured, they will be liable, since the knowingly drove into the hazard. However, if a second person comes, now there is no caution tape. If they get injured I'm sure the liability could be put on the FD. Lawyers will say, "You may have caution taped initially, but it obviously wasn't enough because there was no warning for my client, and he got injured. end of story"

I'm sure the liability could be put on the person who drove through the tape, but you won't find them.

This is a very tricky scenario because the alternative is to babysit the first 5 wires calls (or however many apparatus you have) and not respond to the others. Is it still your liability if you don't respond to the a wires calls at all in a resonable amount of time? I mean you weren't there so how could you be responsible for protecting the scene? I have to imagine there is some sort of protection in the legal system for emergency responders because it's impossible to positively secure all wires down calls during a storm.

[Chief21 8]

This is an interesting article. And it appears that there are many differant stories being told.

First, let me state that "If it was not for the idiots of society we would not need first responders".

Second, Id does not take much more than common sence to see a wire down. How many times do you see or hear people going around road cones/barriers, through caution tape, through traffic control.

I personally saw once where a gentleman put his 8 year old son on the roof of his van to hild the wires up so he could drive under.

In order to do this he went through set of cones, a road closed barrier and more caution tape than should have probably been used.

The fact that the fire department departed is a tough case. Logistically how can you tie up apparatus and man power for extened periods of time?

Before we get to far in to this story we really need to get all the facts.

Hopefully these will come out before this case is sealed.

[helicopper 1,050]

This is a very tricky scenario because the alternative is to babysit the first 5 wires calls (or however many apparatus you have) and not respond to the others. Is it still your liability if you don't respond to the a wires calls at all in a resonable amount of time? I mean you weren't there so how could you be responsible for protecting the scene? I have to imagine there is some sort of protection in the legal system for emergency responders because it's impossible to positively secure all wires down calls during a storm.

Why does it have to be apparatus securing the scene? If the scene is not safe and it is a liability to leave it unattended what about fire police, DPW, PD, or even CERT? So long as an effort is made to safeguard the scene, the liability is reduced. That could be a single person standing there (obviously not practical in severe weather but you could still do it if you needed to).

If the wire is on private property and you notify the landowner, the liability should be transferred to them. It's on their property after all. From what little I read about this case it seems that there was no notification and that is where some of the responsibility was placed. Again, that's just from a couple of the online stories.

[JM15 386]

What responsibility do FD's have in regards to wires down calls? Can a Fire Department choose to not go to them?

[ny10570 745]

He was not home at the time according to the article. He drove home, and got out of his car.

According to multiple articles citing the police report, the couple was attempting to exit the driveway when they noticed flames and sparks. They then pulled back into the driveway and the victim stepped out coming into contact with the live wires.

[meat441 43]

SO! It happened. FD found (partially liable for now). Doubt this will end. Now how about suggestions on how we can all deal with the future? What are town attorney's for? Why not meet with them and find out our responsiblity to respond for WIRES DOWN INCIDENTS? In my township, the FD responds to arching wires, wires burning in trees or attached to structures, wires on vehicles with people inside of them. Other wise PD takes the job in alone. We all have OEM personnel. Most OEM offices have vehicles. They also apply for grants for the purpose of traffic barriers. Our towns OEM is very pro-active and is notified immediately by PD to assist. C.E.R.T teams who are always looking to be utilized at incidents. There are other resources available to assist but never requested. Keep FD & PD available for other responses. How many towns have hidden resources available for use? Most town department's and managers ignore or just refuse to contact each other to discuss resources that maybe be hidden in back storage rooms. Most of the excuses i hear are, i didn't know we had this? FD and PD can't do it all. So why shouldn't we be smarter? SUGGESTIONS? WE CAN ALL SHARE.

[ny10570 745]

So, its an important variable whether or not the victim was aware of the hazard. If the victim ignored barriers and traffic tape, but the FD was still liable then that presents a very real issue for the way we currently operate. If this was an issue where the established procedures were not followed, then this becomes more an issue of awareness than complete overhaul.