She’s going for the big, deep pockets, he cant take it with him, so she’s just gonna have to spend it herself!
Where will it all end?
Im not sure, but at least, it means job security for us.
In order to protect themselves, business owners need to stop calling the fire department. Insurance companies can charge higher rates for the property coverage, but lower the rates on the casualty side (because a manufacturer wouldn’t need to be brought into a liablity suit because of a fire at a retail store).
This is rediculous and if the judge doesn’t throw it out of court, he should be removed from the bench.
I agree I think this a dumb lawsuit on the surface. Leave it to trial attorney’s to concoct another scheme to extract money.
Let’s see, I join the fire department – I fight a fire or rescue a cat from a tree. I die in the line of duty, I can sue the homeowner or business for an act of God say a fire occuring. I didn’t start the fire as the business owner, freak electrical occurrence or a lightning strike starts the fire. As a fireman I know the risks involved in a home or business burning. Or I fall out of tree rescuing a cat, I should then sue the cat owner, the tree owner and the landowner where the tree is located.
So if a policeman is killed in the line of duty, say a bank being robbed and the officer responds. Bank robber starts shooting, if killed, I instruct my wife (beforehand) to sue the bank for putting me in that situation? Hmm, another retarded lawsuit.
We are rapidly eroding our Republic. Someone always has to pay mentality. It is very sad….
does she want the lawsuit proceeds instead of the county firefighter benifits? I’ve told my kids to be a firefighter—the benifits are great because of the potential risks. Her loss is horrible but extra lawsuit money isn’t the answer.
Speaking as an engineer, did the doors malfunction? Did the doors malfunction because of maintenance, design, and/or installation. Two other causes of death — the fire fighter did not perform as trained and/or because the fire department incorrectly performed their mission (poor training, incorrect orders, fire departments equipment malfunctioned).
Congrats to the 6 of 7 respondents who got it right. There is assumption of risk in this profession and no evidence of negligence thus far. Fire doors are a moot point. Fred, you’re the odd man out.
The proximate casue of these deaths was an over-zealous, amateur fire department with a flawed protocol that put its people in danger unecessarily. This building was totally engulfed in flames when they arrived yet they continue to work too close to it rather than prevent it from spreading and let it burn out. There was nothing to be gained by trying to extinguish the blaze. These men were killed when a wall collapsed.
A sprinkler system in a furniture warehouse where required by code but not installed? WORKING fire doors per NFPA 288? Sofas that did not meet or exceed recognized flammability ratings? I certainly see grounds for a suit. Did the fire department make errors, probably, but they will happen in the fog of battle. There also appears to be pretty blatant negligence on behalf of the building owner / tenant. In my years in the industry I am shocked at the cavalier attitude of many insureds towards fire and life safety. Let the courts decide and apportion negligence, if applicable. And take a moment to convince your insureds that their lack of building maintenance and protection may harm others. Some one you care about may be in or near that building some day….
Tragic outcome on both sides no matter the circumstances – however, there is an assumed risk with any position – Are we going to see families of our fallen war heros now sue us as individuals because their loved one was killed fighting for our freedom?
The insanity has to stop – There are benefits available for those who assume these positions in all lines of defense – Police, Firefighters, Security, Soldiers. The job comes with inherent risk – of injury, disfigurement, dismemberment and yes…death.
I’m not being heartless and I apologize if I offend anyone who has a family member who has been lost to their profession, and by no means am I trying to lessen the hardship felt by the families who suffer the ultimate loss.
There has to be some sort of end to the ridiculous suit happy survivors who think they are entitled to more than the assumed risk.
Give me a break — sue the furniture manufacturers? The sofas are “fire retardant” that doesn’t mean in a massive fire they are going to be “fireproof” — If that were the case, we’d all be sitting on steel benches in our living rooms.
The building was a total loss when they arrived. Their training should have told them to go into a defensive mode – not an offensive charge into a compromised business full of combustible materials.
The structure itself should have been considered — Large open warehouse type building with minimal support or internal bearing walls — the age, construction etc. Common sense should have told them that they had no chance of extinguishing with their limited resources — the focus should have been on the surrounding buildings and containing the fire to the original structure.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
She’s going for the big, deep pockets, he cant take it with him, so she’s just gonna have to spend it herself!
Where will it all end?
Im not sure, but at least, it means job security for us.
This is tragic, no doubt. However, is this not a assumed risk of being a fire fighter? Deep pockets indeed…
In order to protect themselves, business owners need to stop calling the fire department. Insurance companies can charge higher rates for the property coverage, but lower the rates on the casualty side (because a manufacturer wouldn’t need to be brought into a liablity suit because of a fire at a retail store).
This is rediculous and if the judge doesn’t throw it out of court, he should be removed from the bench.
I agree I think this a dumb lawsuit on the surface. Leave it to trial attorney’s to concoct another scheme to extract money.
Let’s see, I join the fire department – I fight a fire or rescue a cat from a tree. I die in the line of duty, I can sue the homeowner or business for an act of God say a fire occuring. I didn’t start the fire as the business owner, freak electrical occurrence or a lightning strike starts the fire. As a fireman I know the risks involved in a home or business burning. Or I fall out of tree rescuing a cat, I should then sue the cat owner, the tree owner and the landowner where the tree is located.
So if a policeman is killed in the line of duty, say a bank being robbed and the officer responds. Bank robber starts shooting, if killed, I instruct my wife (beforehand) to sue the bank for putting me in that situation? Hmm, another retarded lawsuit.
We are rapidly eroding our Republic. Someone always has to pay mentality. It is very sad….
does she want the lawsuit proceeds instead of the county firefighter benifits? I’ve told my kids to be a firefighter—the benifits are great because of the potential risks. Her loss is horrible but extra lawsuit money isn’t the answer.
deep pockets. This is ridiculous. I truly wished the Courts would dismiss all of these frivilous lawsuits.
Speaking as an engineer, did the doors malfunction? Did the doors malfunction because of maintenance, design, and/or installation. Two other causes of death — the fire fighter did not perform as trained and/or because the fire department incorrectly performed their mission (poor training, incorrect orders, fire departments equipment malfunctioned).
All parties should be included in the law suit.
Congrats to the 6 of 7 respondents who got it right. There is assumption of risk in this profession and no evidence of negligence thus far. Fire doors are a moot point. Fred, you’re the odd man out.
The proximate casue of these deaths was an over-zealous, amateur fire department with a flawed protocol that put its people in danger unecessarily. This building was totally engulfed in flames when they arrived yet they continue to work too close to it rather than prevent it from spreading and let it burn out. There was nothing to be gained by trying to extinguish the blaze. These men were killed when a wall collapsed.
A sprinkler system in a furniture warehouse where required by code but not installed? WORKING fire doors per NFPA 288? Sofas that did not meet or exceed recognized flammability ratings? I certainly see grounds for a suit. Did the fire department make errors, probably, but they will happen in the fog of battle. There also appears to be pretty blatant negligence on behalf of the building owner / tenant. In my years in the industry I am shocked at the cavalier attitude of many insureds towards fire and life safety. Let the courts decide and apportion negligence, if applicable. And take a moment to convince your insureds that their lack of building maintenance and protection may harm others. Some one you care about may be in or near that building some day….
Tragic outcome on both sides no matter the circumstances – however, there is an assumed risk with any position – Are we going to see families of our fallen war heros now sue us as individuals because their loved one was killed fighting for our freedom?
The insanity has to stop – There are benefits available for those who assume these positions in all lines of defense – Police, Firefighters, Security, Soldiers. The job comes with inherent risk – of injury, disfigurement, dismemberment and yes…death.
I’m not being heartless and I apologize if I offend anyone who has a family member who has been lost to their profession, and by no means am I trying to lessen the hardship felt by the families who suffer the ultimate loss.
There has to be some sort of end to the ridiculous suit happy survivors who think they are entitled to more than the assumed risk.
Give me a break — sue the furniture manufacturers? The sofas are “fire retardant” that doesn’t mean in a massive fire they are going to be “fireproof” — If that were the case, we’d all be sitting on steel benches in our living rooms.
The building was a total loss when they arrived. Their training should have told them to go into a defensive mode – not an offensive charge into a compromised business full of combustible materials.
The structure itself should have been considered — Large open warehouse type building with minimal support or internal bearing walls — the age, construction etc. Common sense should have told them that they had no chance of extinguishing with their limited resources — the focus should have been on the surrounding buildings and containing the fire to the original structure.