Relatives of 2 Fallen South Carolina Firefighters Sue Charleston Businesses

May 16, 2008

  • May 16, 2008 at 2:15 am
    Suzi says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I understand the families’ pain for losing their loved ones but…. Isn’t being a firefighter mean that you may be injured or die in a fire? Isn’t that an inherent risk?

  • May 16, 2008 at 2:33 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have a great deal of sympathy for the families of the fallen firefighters but when you accept firefighting as a career, you do so with the knowledge that every fire you show up at could be your last. The suit should be tossed. It is a dangerous career and I am grateful for their tremendous courage abd sacrifice. They are heros.

  • May 16, 2008 at 2:49 am
    Ricardo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Firefighteres and Paramedics should have
    full disability coverage and at least a
    half million in life insurance as part of their compensation package
    We need a law passed by our legislature (who are mostly attorneys) reducing the maximum contngency fee percentage from
    50 percent to 15 percent. That 15 percent will be double the percent allowed in Europe. Your pain is our gain; a terrible motto of American attorney predators.

  • May 16, 2008 at 3:39 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hopefully, the building owner and furniture manufacturer will tell these opportunists to pound salt. (of course it’s never about the money). There was no duty owed, none breached, and no negligence that put these guys in harms way.

    The study just published and referenced earlier in this newsletter puts the blame squarely on poor training and poor direction by superiors. Neither the building nor the contents killed these poor guys. They assumed a risk and were directed by incompetent leaders to take a risk that wasn’t worth it. Now some backwater jerk attorney is chasing $$$$$. Hope he comes up empty.

  • May 16, 2008 at 4:25 am
    Fireman's Wife says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You might want to read the 272 page report for yourself…you can find it online.
    As for the family members (opportunists as you call them), I’m quite sure they would much rather have their husbands, sons, or fathers safe at home than to be filing the lawsuit.
    The Building owner & furniture manufacturer are very much at fault here, as is detailed in the report…if you can find time to read it before shooting off a post such as you have.
    The building was joined together by some unpermitted construction that created a massive structure that under Charleston fire codes would have required a sprinkler system. This work was done with out obtaining permits or approval of plans. If it had been, the company would have been required to install a sprinkler system that would have contained &/or extinquished the blaze before is spread to the entire structure & took the lives of 9 very brave & dedicated men.

  • May 16, 2008 at 4:31 am
    Fireman's Wife says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is indeed a very real risk that fire fighters face every day on the job. However as with any job you should be properly trained & have the proper equipment to do your job. Without those 2 things, you are poorly equiped to fight fire. That said, the building owner/furniture company has pieced together 4 separate buildings by several unpermitted structures. Had they obtained permits & approval for their plans, the Charleston fire code would have required them to install a sprinkler system in the entire structure. It is this negligence that was a disaster waiting to happen. The 272 page report details how the building was pieced together over time. It seems fairly clear that the company chose to performed the unpermitted work in order to avoid the expense of the sprinkler system. Do you think it was worth the lives of 9 men?

  • May 16, 2008 at 5:42 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I recall reading about this online – and remember that a sprinkler system should have been installed.

    I’m split on this one, but lean toward not allowing the families’ suits. That is because the firefighters were on-duty and were performing their jobs – so would be covered under whatever workers’ compensation program in effect. I understand the fire department should have let the building burn instead of instructing the firemen to save it, but workers’ compensation should be sole remedy.

    If the city wants to sue the company for not following code I would go for that. That to me is a more appropriate recovery scheme. If after that suit the city wants to give more to the firefighters’ families that too would be appropriate.

    I just don’t believe people should recover beyond workers’ compensation. I believe in workers’ compensation being sole rememdy and people understanding that they take certain risks when they go to work.

  • May 17, 2008 at 6:52 am
    gary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am confused, which may not be a difficult thing. But this is their job – to fight fires. No one wants their business to burn down and you cannot possibly plan for every scenario in life either.
    http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Arizona.Auto.Insurance.480-659-0229

  • May 22, 2008 at 6:29 am
    johnny says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The fallen firefighters are heros and were great people, too bad their money grubbing pig families have sullied these firefighters reputations with lawsuits and greed.

  • June 6, 2008 at 11:13 am
    Firefighter Wife says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am appalled by some of the comments posted in this post. Yes, firefighters know the risk and they do it willingly. They also do it severely underpaid and are forced to work 2 and 3 extra jobs to provide for their families. I say more power to Lauren Mulkey.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*