The Flaw in Libertarian Ideals

[A.W. Bowman]

What is over looked are the legal problems that would be incurred if the fireman assisted.

If there was any property damage, other than that which was a 'direct' result of the fire, the FD would be liable, even if the damage was necessary to fighting the fire, e.g., breaking a window or tearing up a section of the roof.

If any livestock got killed, injured, or got loose (lost). Liable.

If any individual got killed, injured, or suffered any person, physical, monetary loss, or any other emotional problems that could be attributed to the actions or inaction of any FD crew member or equipment, liable.

It has gotten so bad, that until many states passed a 'Good Samaritan' law, medical personal would not [could not] stop an give medical assistance to strangers, because of the lawsuits, anything from malpractice to criminal negligence.

If anything happened, whereby anyone associated with the fire and/or its location could claim any loss, hurt, or discomfort that could be attributed to the FD or any of its employees, that individual could loose his job, home, and possibly go to jail.

No, if this was a service contract required location, then to provide any services, no matter how well intentioned, would to be to take a gamble that could have serious repercussions beyond just putting some water on a burning building. ILegal problems could include the FD district (city, town, etc.) having to pay for the rebuilding of the house and replacing its furnishings.

Now, a few decades ago, before folks found out they could get a million dollars from a company for carelessly burning themselves with hot coffee, sold to them at own their request, and as being advertised as being 'hot', most folks would have been glad to lend a hand to save another person's home.

Or, being sued over:
A tree limb that dropped fruit on their side of a fence.
Allowing a dog to 'drop' a load outside of one's own yard, known to you or not.
Other equally insane suits. etc., etc.

In this case, while it is regrettable, I have to side with the fireman.

[ILG]

Okay, I understand siding with the fireman for liability issues, but what is the deal with regular taxes not covering this basic need? Basically, if you are poor, too bad with this system.

[rgcraig]

The homeowner said they forgot to pay and the wife said they offered to pay whatever they needed to that day if they'd put the fire out.

Their grandson was living with them and he got there and tried to use the water hose to put it out......very sad.

I with you guys - - once he offered to pay, I cannot believe they refused to help him.

[rgcraig]

Well, that does shed a new light to it HaS. Thanks for explaining that.

However, what would have kept them from allowing them to pay right then to be current?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

What is over looked are the legal problems that would be incurred if the fireman assisted.

If there was any property damage, other than that which was a 'direct' result of the fire, the FD would be liable, even if the damage was necessary to fighting the fire, e.g., breaking a window or tearing up a section of the roof.

If any livestock got killed, injured, or got loose (lost). Liable.

If any individual got killed, injured, or suffered any person, physical, monetary loss, or any other emotional problems that could be attributed to the actions or inaction of any FD crew member or equipment, liable.

It has gotten so bad, that until many states passed a 'Good Samaritan' law, medical personal would not [could not] stop an give medical assistance to strangers, because of the lawsuits, anything from malpractice to criminal negligence.

If anything happened, whereby anyone associated with the fire and/or its location could claim any loss, hurt, or discomfort that could be attributed to the FD or any of its employees, that individual could loose his job, home, and possibly go to jail.

No, if this was a service contract required location, then to provide any services, no matter how well intentioned, would to be to take a gamble that could have serious repercussions beyond just putting some water on a burning building.

Now, a few decades ago, before folks found out they could get a million dollars from a company for carelessly burning themselves with hot coffee, sold to them at own their request, and as being advertised as being 'hot', most folks would have been glad to lend a hand to save another persons home.

Or, being sued over:
A tree limb that dropped fruit on their side of a fence.
Allowing a dog to 'drop' a load on outside of one's own yard, known to you or not.
etc., etc.

In this case, while it is regrettable, I have to side with the fireman.

I take it you don't buy corporate liability insurance. The insurance for the firedepartment covers all of those things.
. Same as a Doctor in ER. They buy a blanket liability policy and it even covers them if they pitch in at a basketball game.

Actually the firemen can be sued big time for playing games. I can name about 20 lawyers that could take on this department.

I have purchased errors and ommissions policies for several decades.

The fireman is off the hook, because the home owner asked the 911 send them out. If the home owner said stay off the property, the story changes.

Please give us legal court cases that show lawsuits against firemen and awards for damage.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

The homeowner said they forgot to pay and the wife said they offered to pay whatever they needed to that day if they'd put the fire out.

Their grandson was living with them and he got there and tried to use the water hose to put it out......very sad.

I with you guys - - once he offered to pay, I cannot believe they refused to help him.

I for some reason can't find court cases for claims against firemen for fighting fires. I don't go for it.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by coadie

I take it you don't buy corporate liability insurance. The insurance for the firedepartment covers all of those things.
. Same as a Doctor in ER. They buy a blanket liability policy and it even covers them if they pitch in at a basketball game.

Actually the firemen can be sued big time for playing games. I can name about 20 lawyers that could take on this department.

I have purchased errors and ommissions policies for several decades.

The fireman is off the hook, because the home owner asked the 911 send them out. If the home owner said stay off the property, the story changes.

Please give us legal court cases that show lawsuits against firemen and awards for damage.

Volunteer fire dept - - might make a difference.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Volunteer fire dept - - might make a difference.

$75 = volunteer???

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by coadie

I am a little bold. It would be illegal and nasty if a person came into an emergency room and they hustled to find out pay status before giving the best care.
I also know if a fireman is trained to put out fires and keep his discussion of politics inside the walls of the firestation, Many firemen agree this makes them look bad. Very bad. First rule is to protect people and property.
If a good fireman fought a fire and got fired because the mayor said he should have avoided it, he would be my hero.

Coadie,
I agree with your sentiments concerning this situation.

I do wonder if there is anything in individual firemen's professional insurance plans that would allow the insurance companies to not cover the firemen in situations like this.


If it were up to me, this law would be immediately repealed and the elected officials who supported this law would be voted out.


I am not one of those sue happy people, but in this case, if it were my family, you'd better believe I would be looking to consider all, if any, of the legal options available to me.



If one of the family members in this case had suffered smoke inhalation injuries in direct result of this fire, would the EMT's not treat that person?

If someone was trapped inside that house, would the firemen have not rescued them?


This is an example of a very bad law.

[jfrog]

I'm with coadie on this one. Liability issues doesn't explain it. In fact no one involved cited liability issues as the reason they didn't do anything. What they claimed was they didn't do anything because they didn't pay for the service.