• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

fire dept wouldn't put the fire out...

knifemaker3

New Member
What you people are forgeting is what has already been stated back in the thread. If you live in a city and you only have the license to put up a sign in the city and someone from outside the city limits comes and wants you install a sign will you do it? NO. Why? Because your insurance won't cover you.

Well guess what....it's the same with insurance protecting fire depts, police, ems, etc. If we step outside of our jurisdiction and get hurt we are not covered by our insurance unless we are mutal aid with another dept who has requested our help.

These people chose or forgot to pay their fire dues and therefore the fire dept. couldn't do anything per protocol. The people knew ahead of time that they were required to pay if they wanted a response. They chose to take a chance and lost. It's their fault, not the fire department! And if this goes to court the court will side with the fire department.

Again, it would be nice if every state was required to inact tax based fire depts. for the entire state, not just city depts. etc. However, unless the people of the state vote that in or it becomes a federal mandate it won't happen in many states. And the Law states in most jurisdictions that are not tax based that you can legally not respond to a non member fire should one occur. As I understand it, they responded to protect the paid members property, but couldn't do a thing about the non member's property per their protocol.

Fire fighters have rules and limitations just like everyone else does. A cop can't just shoot someone without a viable reason. Neither can a fire fighter just show up at a fire and fight that fire unless they are allowed too. In this case they were not, even though the victim was asking them too. Because of the rules they have to follow, that alone was not enough for them to act.

I'm not stating the morally it is right or wrong to sit and watch it burn. I'm sure if asked the firefighters would have loved to put out the fire. But, their insurance, city government, etc. probably wouldn't let them put it out.

As a firefighter myself, I will tell you what we are taught in the fire service. NO AMOUNT OF PROPERTY IS WORTH LOSING A LIFE OVER. Like I have already said, most people run out of a burning building, yet those very people think nothing of asking a firefighter to risk their life just to save some type of material belonging.

Had there been someone trapped inside the home I'm sure they would have jumped right in and done their best to try and save the trapped individual. As it was, all they could do was sit back and watch.

I know many people are outraged by what took place. But the cold hard fact of the matter is the fire department was just following the protocols set by their department.

We pay police, military, ambulance, medical, etc. to do their jobs. Yet, somehow in many places in America we expect common people many of whom don't get paid for their time or services to rush into burning buildings to help people in need with little or no thanks whatsoever. But then when they can't because of the rules and regulations they have to abide by people get upset. I don't know if these were paid firefighters, paid per call, or all volunteer. But I do know they were doing their job within the guidelines of what they could do.

That is all that can and should be expected of anybody.
 

JimJenson

New Member
That's not a workable idea. Here's why:

Suppose the firefighter is injured in the course of putting out that fire. Or dies. The first thing the insurance carrier they have is going to say is,
"did this injury (or death) occur in the course of his normally scheduled duties?"

Ah...no, he was free-lancing. In the absence of a contract or specific agreement to perform that job at that time, he was not authorized to perform that function. (and then expect to be covered)

There are so many legal entanglements in any undertaking by a City Employee, but even more so when he goes out of his jurisdiction and does a job he's not authorized to do.


Actually, there would be a working contract. the only difference would be it would in the method of payment and time of payment.
Sign on the dotted line. There would have to be a contract in the event of non payment.
 
Top