Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JJB531

Jury Awards Woman 825g in Crash with Firefighter

80 posts in this topic



Mohr was driving a sport-utility vehicle north on Harrison Avenue around 60 mph on the morning of June 21, 2007, speeding toward a crash on the Hutchinson River Parkway. He passed another firefighter’s vehicle that was ahead of him — radio transmissions recorded him chiding the other firefighter for going too slow — then pulled into oncoming lanes of traffic and drove through a red light into the intersection with Union Avenue.

Never, ever pass another emergency vehicle en route to an alarm. It's been on the books of the rules and regs of my former dept since the early 20th Century.

If this former chief would have stayed behind the other responder this accident never would have happened.

sueg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it the town was involved in the lawsuit? Was it a Department-owned vehicle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article sounds like it was a Chief's vehicle that was involved, not a POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it the town was involved in the lawsuit? Was it a Department-owned vehicle?

I know up here in the hinterlands, a member responding to a page for an incident is covered by the FD's insurance (at least when provided by ME Municipal) and therefore is assumed to be "on duty". This along with the requirement to have "red light permits" that give authorization to use these devices, make for "tacit approval" by the Fire Chief and ultimately the town or municipality. I would think that nearly every jury of 12 would say that if a firefighter is responding to a call and using emergency lights, he/she is acting on behalf of the FD and as such place them high on the liability list. It's the dept's responsibility to ensure their members respond safely to calls for service and dismiss members who fail to comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that no where in this article is this individual identified as a VOLUNTEER Firefighter. I am working to have that corrected.

The issue of reckless driving is much more prevalent in the Volunteer Fire Service than on the career side. This is not to say that there haven't been instances of career Firefighters driving recklessly. However, the overwhelming majority of these instances are on the volunteer side. That is something that the public should be aware of so that those who are served by career departments are not overly concerned and so that perhaps pressure may be brought to resolve this recurring problem with volunteer firefighters which has cost many lives and injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LoHud article I questioned did not indicate this was a department Chief's vehicle or that the operator was an assistant chief. The updated webpage now includes this information, that it was in fact a fire department owned vehicle.

Something else to ponder: I would think most insurance companies would reject any claims resulting from an accident that involved reckless operation on the part of the operator.

Speeding, crossing double-yellow lines, blowing red lights/stopsigns, all would surely get you a reckless driving summons under certain circumstances.

Yeah, because no career FF ever drove recklessly, ever, in the history of the world, right?

And, what's your point with stirring the pot, FFLieu?

Chief Flynn already stated there are instances where career ff's aren't exempt.

JFLYNN likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not read the first sentence with the word volunteer emblazoned in all caps for all the world to see how we're the scum of the earth? Perhaps not.

Top to bottom, left to right. Group words together as a sentence. Many sentences comprise a thought. Maybe they didn't teach you that in elementary school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, because no career FF ever drove recklessly, ever, in the history of the world, right?

if you would have read jflynn quote before you fired off on your keyboard you would have seen he did say something about career ff's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that no where in this article is this individual identified as a VOLUNTEER Firefighter. I am working to have that corrected.

Does that work both ways? Should news articles pertaining to career personnel point out as much?

ff710 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that work both ways? Should news articles pertaining to career personnel point out as much?

Yes, absolutely! We are talking about two entirely different things. For the sake of fairness and accuracy, I believe that all news articles should state the word "career" or "volunteer" in front of Firefighter.

On another note I hope that this thread will generate some discussion regarding safe driving practices for both career and volunteer Firefighters.

Keep in mind however that the issue of reckless driving causing property damage, injuries, and deaths has been documented to be vastly more prevalent in the volunteer fire service as opposed to the career side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, absolutely! We are talking about two entirely different things. For the sake of fairness and accuracy, I believe that all news articles should state the word "career" or "volunteer" in front of Firefighter.

OK, excellent. I couldn't agree more. I merely asked your position, as a recent article you were quoted in failed to include the term "career", and I wasn't sure if you were working to have that corrected.

I am all for equality.

FF398 and ff710 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, excellent. I couldn't agree more. I merely asked your position, as a recent article you were quoted in failed to include the term "career", and I wasn't sure if you were working to have that corrected.

I am all for equality.

Great, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several years ago I took an EVOC course with Lt Mike Wilbur and during the course he asked How much time are you actually saving if you drive the speed limit as opposed to driving above the posted speed limit? The answer was not much. Every operator should be familiar with the NYS V&T Laws regarding the operation of emergency vehicles I can't remember the correct section right now but it is included as part f the NYS EVOC course. Seven years ago I was involved in a rollover accident with our tanker, the County PD did a reconstruction and found no fault with me (the driver), the rig or the roadway. To this day I blame myself only as I was the operator of the vehicle and I broke a cardinal rule of apparatus drivers which in my book is getting the rig and most importantly the crew to and from the scene safely. This accident and lawsuit should be a lesson to all operators, I am surprised that there was no mention of punative monies which comes from you out of pocket.

ArchAngel333, sueg and BFD1054 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that no where in this article is this individual identified as a VOLUNTEER Firefighter. I am working to have that corrected.

The issue of reckless driving is much more prevalent in the Volunteer Fire Service than on the career side. This is not to say that there haven't been instances of career Firefighters driving recklessly. However, the overwhelming majority of these instances are on the volunteer side. That is something that the public should be aware of so that those who are served by career departments are not overly concerned and so that perhaps pressure may be brought to resolve this recurring problem with volunteer firefighters which has cost many lives and injuries.

You said the overwhelming majority of these wrecks are on the volunteer side. Do you have the stats? With the sheer number of volunteer fire departments I would expect more volunteer accidents than paid. Add in that every volunteer is driving to the scene or station, are volunteers more reckless. I don't have any real info on this, but would be curious to see the breakdown of accidents per firefighter or even department. I doubt its out there, but per mile driven could also be really interesting. I'm sure the bias towards younger firefighters and older equipment bumps up the rate of accidents for volunteers. All in all a comprehensive review of this would be very interesting.

Edited by ny10570

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said the overwhelming majority of these wrecks are on the volunteer side. Do you have the stats? With the sheer number of volunteer fire departments I would expect more volunteer accidents than paid. Add in that every volunteer is driving to the scene or station, are volunteers more reckless. I don't have any real info on this, but would be curious to see the breakdown of accidents per firefighter or even department. I doubt its out there, but per mile driven could also be really interesting. I'm sure the bias towards younger firefighters and older equipment bumps up the rate of accidents for volunteers. All in all a comprehensive review of this would be very interesting.

Thanks for asking!

NFPA U.S. Firefighter Deaths in Motor Vehicle Accidents 2000-2010 shows 112 deaths to Volunteer Firefighters and 26 to Career Firefighters.

NFPA Selected Special Analyses of Firefighter Fatalities 1992-2002 states "Among those killed in incidents that occured while responding to, or returning from, alarms, were 251 members of local Fire Departments. Of these, 226 were Volunteer Firefighters and 25 were Career Firefighters."

We can infer from these statistics that property damage, injuries and death caused to innocent civilains is far higher in crashes involving volunteer Firefighters than career.

A simple Google search for "Firefighter Vehicle Accident" will show very many dramatic accidents which have occured. The overwhelming majority of these are identified as volunteer firefighters (I guess most media outlets realize the importance in regard to fairness and accuracy in identifying these drivers as volunteer Firefighters).

These stats are particularly troubling when it is considered that the majority of alarms requiring Fire Department response in the United States are to career departments.

Edited by JFLYNN
FDNY 10-75 and jack10562 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lohud has corrected the article by adding "volunteer" before "Firefighter". Thank you for doing the right thing lohud. The article is now fair and accurate. I will send emails to the appropriate editors to thank them later today when I have access to their email addresses.

That's enough time on here on my day off today! Hopefully lessons will be learned from this thread and tragic incidents like the one in Harrison can be prevented. Please don't take my non- responsiveness to further posts as anything other than that I am busy. If time permits I will respond, but for today I have spent too much time on here already.

Be safe out there guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking!

NFPA U.S. Firefighter Deaths in Motor Vehicle Accidents 2000-2010 shows 112 deaths to Volunteer Firefighters and 26 to Career Firefighters.

NFPA Selected Special Analyses of Firefighter Fatalities 1992-2002 states "Among those killed in incidents that occured while responding to, or returning from, alarms, were 251 members of local Fire Departments. Of these, 226 were Volunteer Firefighters and 25 were Career Firefighters."

We can infer from these statistics that property damage, injuries and death caused to innocent civilains is far higher in crashes involving volunteer Firefighters than career.

A simple Google search for "Firefighter Vehicle Accident" will show very many dramatic accidents which have occured. The overwhelming majority of these are identified as volunteer firefighters (I guess most media outlets realize the importance in regard to fairness and accuracy in identifying these drivers as volunteer Firefighters).

These stats are particularly troubling when it is considered that the majority of alarms requiring Fire Department response in the United States are to career departments.

In response to the NFPA's stats which Jflynn highlighted you can't argue with facts. We (volunteers) are being injured or dying in large numbers not only in accidents but also heart attacks ( another thread). And I say this not only from NFPA stats but also as a former EVOC instructor where I spent hours reading cases involving accidents. Now an argument can be made that our numbers are higher and in many cases many volunteers respond in POV's but at the end of the day it is a problem and more emphasis needs to be put into safe driving.

Edited by HFD219
BFD1054 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said the overwhelming majority of these wrecks are on the volunteer side. Do you have the stats? With the sheer number of volunteer fire departments I would expect more volunteer accidents than paid. Add in that every volunteer is driving to the scene or station, are volunteers more reckless. I don't have any real info on this, but would be curious to see the breakdown of accidents per firefighter or even department. I doubt its out there, but per mile driven could also be really interesting. I'm sure the bias towards younger firefighters and older equipment bumps up the rate of accidents for volunteers. All in all a comprehensive review of this would be very interesting.

Thanks for asking!

NFPA U.S. Firefighter Deaths in Motor Vehicle Accidents 2000-2010 shows 112 deaths to Volunteer Firefighters and 26 to Career Firefighters.

NFPA Selected Special Analyses of Firefighter Fatalities 1992-2002 states "Among those killed in incidents that occured while responding to, or returning from, alarms, were 251 members of local Fire Departments. Of these, 226 were Volunteer Firefighters and 25 were Career Firefighters."

We can infer from these statistics that property damage, injuries and death caused to innocent civilains is far higher in crashes involving volunteer Firefighters than career.

A simple Google search for "Firefighter Vehicle Accident" will show very many dramatic accidents which have occured. The overwhelming majority of these are identified as volunteer firefighters (I guess most media outlets realize the importance in regard to fairness and accuracy in identifying these drivers as volunteer Firefighters).

These stats are particularly troubling when it is considered that the majority of alarms requiring Fire Department response in the United States are to career departments.

As I think ny10570 was trying to say, the fact that the number of volunteers involved in accidents is higher is not surprising, but this number alone is meaningless without further data to make an objective comparison. You are comparing the numerators of two fractions while ignoring the denominator. Since there are vastly more volunteer than career firefighters, the comparison is not valid until you can compare it by the vehicle mile or something to that effect.

100 is larger than 10, but 100/10000 (0.01) is less than 10/100 (0.1)

INIT915, BFD1054, ny10570 and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lohud has corrected the article by adding "volunteer" before "Firefighter". Thank you for doing the right thing lohud. The article is now fair and accurate. I will send emails to the appropriate editors to thank them later today when I have access to their email addresses.

JF - Dont let LoHud off so easy! If it were me, I'd make an issue about them misquoting you in that March article.

tjd1012 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I think ny10570 was trying to say, the fact that the number of volunteers involved in accidents is higher is not surprising, but this number alone is meaningless without further data to make an objective comparison. You are comparing the numerators of two fractions while ignoring the denominator. Since there are vastly more volunteer than career firefighters, the comparison is not valid until you can compare it by the vehicle mile or something to that effect.

100 is larger than 10, but 100/10000 (0.01) is less than 10/100 (0.1)

Well said. As anyone who produces statistical modeling knows, you must correct for resultant bias within an acceptable probability ratio, or else your comparing apples and oranges. For a valid comparison, you must equalize in order to compare apples to apples.

ny10570 and BFD1054 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking!

NFPA U.S. Firefighter Deaths in Motor Vehicle Accidents 2000-2010 shows 112 deaths to Volunteer Firefighters and 26 to Career Firefighters.

NFPA Selected Special Analyses of Firefighter Fatalities 1992-2002 states "Among those killed in incidents that occured while responding to, or returning from, alarms, were 251 members of local Fire Departments. Of these, 226 were Volunteer Firefighters and 25 were Career Firefighters."

We can infer from these statistics that property damage, injuries and death caused to innocent civilains is far higher in crashes involving volunteer Firefighters than career.

A simple Google search for "Firefighter Vehicle Accident" will show very many dramatic accidents which have occured. The overwhelming majority of these are identified as volunteer firefighters (I guess most media outlets realize the importance in regard to fairness and accuracy in identifying these drivers as volunteer Firefighters).

These stats are particularly troubling when it is considered that the majority of alarms requiring Fire Department response in the United States are to career departments.

Ok, so I'm not sure why the difference between the two stats you have. Was it just because the the time period studied or were there different criteria in the search? The "Selected Special Analysis" is throwing me off. But we'll go with what we got. From 92-02 Career ff's made up 9.9% of the deaths and from '00 to '10 they're up to 18.8%. Since the two over lap this is terrible statistics, but when I average it out we get 14.35%. As of 2010 All career and mostly career FD's only represented 14% of the firefighters nation wide. Arguably even in mostly volunteer FD's the career guys still probably do the lion share of the apparatus driving. That more than doubles the number to 32% of all firefighters.

All of this however could mean nothing because take yonkers for example. Your dept has how many apparatus on the road available to respond every day? A quick google search came up with 20 including the battalions. If you take your typlical westchester volleys responding from home to fill 18 rigs and two chiefs (lets assume only two members on each rig because its a beautiful tuesday afternoon) you're going to wind up with 56 separate vehicles being driven. You'd have to do 3x as many runs in yonkers to cover the number of trips taken by the vollys. Then there's the number of miles driven. What's the average distance for urban paid depts vs suburban and rural volunteer depts? Chief, you're over simplifying some very complicated statistics just to make a point. Without the proper data how can people not take this as a biased attack? It makes it seem personal no matter how much you insist it is not.

Edited by ny10570
BFD1054, ptwatson, ff710 and 6 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with this tag team piling on the chief? How is a post telling a member to "shove it" allowed to stand? Another a picture of a pile of dog excrement. Real professional there guy. A couple of others I know and respect what they write, but fellas, enough with this statistical pissing match no?

I have to disagree with you Capt. You can't throw around numbers backing your hypothesis if they don't actually do that. They may, after analysis, but not in the manner they were presented. It's no secret I think JF knows what he is talking about, but his ability to relate it often gets lost in his delivery to some.

As I don't have anything with the fire service, career or volunteer, I certainly don't take it personal.

ff710 and mvfire8989 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One-line, non-contributory and inflammatory posts removed, as well as the inappropriate postings by some members. Any further such postings will result in your posting privileges revoked, or your banning.

You do not like something someone says, say it in a constructive manner, or take it to PM and say whatever you want, but not in our open threads.

sueg, firedude and SOUSGT like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. I had a chance to pop back in here quickly and the responses have just about been what I expected. In response to those who state that my statistics are oversimplified or misleading, I would perhaps agree that stats can be used to mislead and that the stats I posted were not a comprehensive statistical analysis of the problem. However, they were not misleading.

When I post on here about obvious problems like reckless driving in the volunteer fire service, I am not posting to reach those of you whose heads are in the sand, who see this as a career vs. volunteer battle, and who take these things personally. I fully realize that you are not open minded and that you will feel that your best defense is a good offense and you will attack me personally or the career fire service in general. It is what it is.

The people I am trying to reach are the reasonable, open minded members of this forum- career, volunteer, and other. Any member of the fire service who has been paying attention over the course of several years or more would realize that this issue is what it is...there are reckless drivers in both the career and volunteer fire service. However, this is a minor issue on the career side, and a rampant one on the volunteer side.

Those who will dispute this, make excuses, or attack career Firefighters to deflect from the issue at hand, rather than make some attempt to solve this serious problem, do a disservice to those whom they are sworn to protect.

DR104 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chief Flynn I think to have an article point out that a firefighter is a Volunteer or Career is senseless, both sides have driving issues just as bad as the other. Just because you want people who have a career department to feel safe, does not mean it does not happen there. I have agreed with you on many issues here, but this one I have to say I disagree.

If you’re trying to say that career firefighters drive safer then volley firefighters...well your wrong if that is the statement. I have seen "career" firefighters blow red lights and stop signs on regular basis in the City, Yonkers, New Roc, and Mount Vern. So maybe if I write an editorial I on this should I use the term Career. So the people in my town feel safer because they are not volunteers I am writing about. While I am at should I mention if it is a female firefighter or male firefighter because there are people who think females are bad drivers, or should I state the firefighter is short or tall because there are people who think because if he or she is short they cant do the job, or should I state if a firefighter is black or white because there are racist people out there.

Edited by calhobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chief Flynn has an uncanny ability to ruffle the feathers of many on this board every time he posts. As a career fire officer once told me, figures lie and liars figure. If you are going to bash the Chief for his comments, back them up with some facts as he did. I am sure once all of the numbers are out there we can go on and on about numbers of career vs volunteer and number of calls responded to career vs volunteer as well as distance travelled to each call career vs volunteer. The bottom line is, when was the last time you read about a career chief passing another on the way to a call, make fun of that chief on a recorded radio channel for going too slow, and then plow into an unsuspecting driver? The actions of the Chief in this article are beyond defending.

Maybe all involved can post their Department's SOG's and policies regarding drivers: training, minimum time required, courses required, etc. That would prove to be a more educational topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. I had a chance to pop back in here quickly and the responses have just about been what I expected. In response to those who state that my statistics are oversimplified or misleading, I would perhaps agree that stats can be used to mislead and that the stats I posted were not a comprehensive statistical analysis of the problem. However, they were not misleading.

When I post on here about obvious problems like reckless driving in the volunteer fire service, I am not posting to reach those of you whose heads are in the sand, who see this as a career vs. volunteer battle, and who take these things personally. I fully realize that you are not open minded and that you will feel that your best defense is a good offense and you will attack me personally or the career fire service in general. It is what it is.

The people I am trying to reach are the reasonable, open minded members of this forum- career, volunteer, and other. Any member of the fire service who has been paying attention over the course of several years or more would realize that this issue is what it is...there are reckless drivers in both the career and volunteer fire service. However, this is a minor issue on the career side, and a rampant one on the volunteer side.

Those who will dispute this, make excuses, or attack career Firefighters to deflect from the issue at hand, rather than make some attempt to solve this serious problem, do a disservice to those whom they are sworn to protect.

Chief, i could be wrong, but i havent read any posts that were "anti-career." Maybe i am missing something? I also dont think anyone has bashed you personally. Many have responded to your posts, but i didnt see any as an attack?

Ive always enjoyed reading your posts, even when i may not agree with them 100%. Hell, i even enjoy your witty sarcasim. Its been said on here before that you're anti-volunteer. Guess what, maybe im alone, but i could care less if you are or not.

I must say though that i agree with your post that i have quoted here. Whether you're anti-volunteer or not, you bring up an excellent point. The issue of reckless driving (on either "side") is a big problem.

In the article, it is hard to tell what kind of vehicle the Chief passed. It says that he passed another member who was en-route to the call. Was this another Chief or a member in a POV?

Either way, its safe to say that this Chiefs actions were reckless and downright stupid. I am not too familar with Harrison, much less the intersection where the accident took place. The article states that the Chief was traveling around 60mph. This was not a highway, so the speed limit was certainly not 55mph. So, he may have been in a 45mph zone at best, no? To drive 60mph through a congested Town, then blow a red light at those speeds is crazy. Any apparatus operator (or civilian driver for that matter) knows that you dont just blow an intersection, controlled or not.

Another member had posted that statistics show that theres not much difference in response times when going the speed limit versus going over it by a small ammount. This is pretty much common knowledge stuff that seems to go out the window. Even if this Chief didnt crash, he would have only shaved off seconds of his response time.

Because of his actions, somebody was seriously injured, while he apparently walked away unscathed. Because of his actions, emergency personnel had to worry and respond to this 2nd accident which he caused.

Maybe i didnt read it correctly. But the article states that the monetary damages are to be paid by the Town AND this former Chief. Safe to say that it was determined that the Chief was at fault, no? But nowhere in the article (unless i missed it) does it say anything about him being charged or ticketed for anything. Also, was he suspended from the HFD and/or "de-moted?"

Guys and girls, this should be a wake-up call to all of us, career, volly, PD or EMS.

Stay safe

x4093k, dashield, mvfire8989 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.