Negligence in Fire Services

 

 Abstract

In this study, the focus has been emphasized on the consequences resulting from negligence in relation to Fire Services.  To start with, the study focuses on understanding the meaning of negligence and the factors that are considered for a situation to be counted as negligence. Furthermore, the study also entails research on the relevance of immunity protections for firefighters and fire departments.  Finally, the study researches three court cases involving fire service concerning negligence from the Fire Law blog. The study addresses how the court addresses the filed cases concerning the facts, issues, holding, and rationale in deciding on the judgment of the case.

Keywords: Duty, Breach, Negligence, Defendants, Plaintiffs, Fire Department.

 

Negligence in Fire Services

Introduction

A Study on Negligence

In the contemporary world, negligence prevalence has caused negative consequences to other individuals (plaintiffs). Negligence has emerged as a failure to take responsibility and care thus leading to loss to other individuals as well as causing injuries and damages. Primarily, the negligence law states that compensation should be provided to those individuals that are affected by another person’s negligence. Furthermore, studies from laws establish that gross negligence resulting in deaths is punishable in the criminal courts. When it comes to civil liability, negligence to emergency response is one of the biggest areas of concern.  According to Dobson (2015), research papers report that the negligence law in the United States begun to be effective during the 1830s and 1840s. This was a liability theory that emerged as a result of carelessness causing harm to others. In addition, the essence of this theory of liability was that a person is held responsible and should be subject to liability for their carelessness that brings harm to another. Since negligence is an act that results from something happening by accident, five elements must be met in order for a problem to be considered negligent.

Therefore, for an individual or organization to be accused of negligence, the plaintiff must raise a complaint proving the occurrence of the five negligence elements. These elements that account for negligence include duty, breach, cause, damage, and harm (Ehrenzweig, 2020). The elements work together to form a cause-effect relationship between the defendant’s wrong and the harm induced to the plaintiff. Besides, there is a link between the defendant’s breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff encountered. Therefore the five elements of negligence will be discussed briefly to get a better understanding of its aspect.

 

 

1. Duty

Duty is termed as an obligation of one person to another and has been used in religious, social, and in philosophical aspects for many years. Most importantly, duty is an element that binds individuals to one another in the community. Every negligence claim must include duty element as it provides a front door to the recovery for accidental harm. However, the element of duty plays an important role in court as it encourages fairness, justice, and social policy.

2. Breach

It is also referred to us as the defendant's breach of duty, for instance, it reflects on the defendant’s inappropriate acts and omissions that lead to harm to other persons. An individual who acts carelessly and unreasonably breaches the duty of care, and this implies negligence as he risks the safety of others. Determination of breach is evaluated by comparing the defendant’s contact to good behaviors (objective), which measures how reasonable a wise person would have reacted in a given situation in relation to risking other people’s lives.

3. Cause in Fact

For negligence law to be effective, the plaintiff must establish a cause-effect relationship between negligence and the harm caused. Also, Plaintiff must link the damages caused to the defendant’s negligence (breach of duty). For instance, if a pedestrian steps into a roadway and is hit by a high speed moving car, the plaintiff (pedestrian) must claim that the defendant (driver) was driving carelessly and also the cause in fact in this case should be the excess car speeding that triggered negligence and hence causing harm.

4. Proximate Cause

Proximate cause is linked to cause in fact but slightly differs in that the proximate cause addresses the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injury. It proves a direct relationship between the defendant’s wrong and the injury resulting from the action. This element requires that the defendant compensates the plaintiffs for the damages and injuries caused in terms of monetary value for property repair and medical care among others (Shiffrin, 2017). However, defendants are also protected from the remote consequences of the negligence they cause in case the negligence is unusual or abnormal and also when the connection between the defendant’s breach of duty and harm is very weak.

5. Harm

This is the last element of negligence, whereby the plaintiff suffers damage and injuries resulting from the breach of duty by the defendant. Here, the victim proves that he or she suffered injuries, loss, and expenses from the defendant’s negligence. The defendant compensates and restores what the plaintiff lost as a result of the defendant’s wrong.

Discussion

Immunity Protection for Firefighters and Fire Department.

Many cases such as that of Kentucky supports immunity for firefighters and fire departments. However, in many governments, immunity protection is vital as it serves as a shield for the fire departments from the liabilities incurred by the court, plaintiffs, and juries (Kim & Bae 2017). Firefighter volunteers should enjoy the immunity protection found under the federal Volunteer Protection Act. This law immunizes fire departments and firefighters from being liable to damages caused during their duty. For instance, in a case of Grayson County outside the city of Caneyville, the Greens own motorcycle business and it happened that the business caught fire on 3^rd of December 2003. The CVFD, a volunteer fire department responded to the call to distinguish the fire.

However, the Appellees (plaintiffs) brought a complaint that CVFD was negligent in failing to extinguish the fire in time and this led to great and severe property damages. The decision of the court is reversed as the amount claimed was found to be constitutional. In addition, fire departments do not insure property owners from losses resulting from fire. Similarly, the CVFD lacked sufficient manpower and equipment to combat the problem just like for any other fire department and therefore was not responsible for the harm of the property (Weir et al., 2019). From this case, we understand that there is a need to support immunity protection jural rights for firefighters and fire departments so as to avoid compensation of unnecessary liabilities.

Court Cases Involving Fire Service Related Negligence

1. Illinois Fire Department and Wrong Death Suit Case

In this case, the family of Amanda Gary filed a suit against the Calumet Fire Department alleging that the negligence of the fire department paramedics led to her death.  The family claimed that the paramedics were late by 14 minutes in intubating her; they inserted the tube in the esophagus instead of her trachea. Also, the medics fail to control Gary’s blood oxygen level, which contributed to the inappropriate insertion of the tube.

The issue arising from this case was that the city denied the plaintiff of the accusation of being negligent. Besides, the defendants supported this using the Illinois EMS Act of immunity under section 3.150(a). Besides, another issue comments on the statement made by the plaintiff that the defendants were “reckless misconduct” differs completely from negligence. The court holds the immunity protection Act which stated that any organization, which provides emergency or non-emergency health services with good faith as they conduct their normal duties, would not be liable to losses. Most importantly, the rationale of the court was based on the extensive efforts the paramedics did to save Gary’s life. In addition, the plaintiff presented no evidence and also Amanda’s physicians supported that she had health issues before her death. The court identified that the plaintiff should have present evidence against the city failing to recognize this problem through negligence or recklessness.

1. The Injured Jacksonville Firefighters and the Ship Fire

In this case, the plaintiffs, Jacksonville Fire & Rescue (ten firefighters) filed a suit against six defendants claiming that they were responsible for their injuries. The plaintiffs won the case in the court as the judge alleged four negligence practices found under the extension of the Admiralty Act implemented in IN 46 U.S.C. & 30301. The case was brought to court under this general maritime law to protect the rights of the plaintiffs and their spouses. The Hoegh Shipping was alleged of committing a tort by causing injury to individuals arising from outside omissions. Besides the defendant was responsible for organizing and preparing the used and wrecked cars for loading and transportation. The defendants (Hoegh and Grimaldi) failed to provide well trained and prepared crew and this caused a 2-hour delay. The plaintiffs prevailed in this case as the defendants breached the duty of reasonable care. The neglected duties that made the court make decisions included failure to maintain ship safety, reasonable systems (fire protection), unskilled crew, insufficient tools, cargo plan, and violation of industry conditions.

2. The Case of Man Who Lost Wife and Daughters in Gatlinburg Fire and the Park Service

Michael Reed filed a suit in US District Court for the Eastern District against the National Park Service. He lost his wife, two daughters, and accuses the USA (defendants) of negligence and wrongful death. Reed was later joined by another plaintiff (James England), who lost his house during the fire and the total suit was 15million dollars. The suits claimed that the officials failed to address the chimney tops that led to fire outbreak. The court should therefore consider negligence to provide timely and accurate notifications and warnings. Also the local government officials, fire departments should be warned about the status presented by chimney Top 2 fire. The plaintiffs pray that the court validates their claims that it finds the defendant liable to the claims according to Federal Tort Act.

Conclusion

In general, negligence in Fire Services leads to negative impacts on other individuals' lives in terms of property damage and body injuries as well as death. In addition, negligence practices that lead to death are punishable in the court of law. The five elements of negligence which include duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, damage, and harm help in identifying negligence issues in the community. Moreover, the elements also play a significant role in court rulings in matters concerning negligence and the related consequences.

 

 

References

Dobson, E. (2015). Negligence. Legaldate, 27(1), 4-5.

Ehrenzweig, A. A. (2020). Negligence without fault. University of California Press.

http://www.firelawblog.com/2018/05/28/man-who-lost-wife-and-daughters-in-gatlinburg-fire-sues-park-service-for-14-million/

http://www.firelawblog.com/2020/09/01/injured-jacksonville-firefighters-sue-over-ship-fire/

http://www.firelawblog.com/2020/10/27/illinois-fire-department-prevails-in-wrongful-death-suit/

Kim, M. S., & Bae, M. J. (2017). A study on a fire extinguisher with sound focus. International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information, 20(6A), 4055-4062.

Shiffrin, S. (2017). The moral neglect of negligence. Oxford studies in political philosophy, 3, 197-228.

Weir, J. R., Kreuter, U. P., Wonkka, C. L., Twidwell, D., Stroman, D. A., Russell, M., & Taylor, C. A. (2019). Liability and prescribed fire: Perception and reality. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 72(3), 533-538.