The Flaw in Libertarian Ideals - Page 3

jfrog · #21 10-07-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

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. 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.

That was a bad case to cite. McDonalds was in the wrong on that coffee case.

coadie · #22 10-07-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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.

Outside a business, there are laws that require signs posting hazardous chemicals. If it was fireworks, they may not go in. I don't think it is a law. I think the tax is the ordinance or law.

The home owner subrogates rights to their insurance carrier. If the Insurance company settles and wants to file negligence with the firemen, the fire department may find that very expensive.

rgcraig · #23 10-07-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

$75 = volunteer???

The department is comprised of volunteers. They charge $75 per year to be assisted by the department should there be a fire.

What's your question?

jfrog · #24 10-07-2010, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

The department is comprised of volunteers. They charge $75 per year to be assisted by the department should there be a fire.

What's your question?

The city fire department of South Fulton is a volunteer fire department?

I think you read it wrong. The city fire department of South Fulton ONLY charges 75 dollars to county residents for fire service. The city dwellers don't have to pay that 75 dollar fee.

From the article cited:

Quote:

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton.

Jermyn Davidson · #25 10-07-2010, 11:56 AM

My next question concerning this: why doesn't this particular county have any fire departments?

Seems like someone at some point of time could allocated funds for what I would call a necessary part of county government infrastructure.

So do the residents of this county pay a special fee for police protection from the nearby city as well?

This situation exposes a real jacked up mindset of the role and purpose of local government.

jfrog · #26 10-07-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

My next question concerning this: why doesn't this particular county have any fire departments?

Seems like someone at smoe point of time could allocated funds for what I would call a necessary part of county government infrastructure.

So do the residents of this county pay a special fee for police protection from the nearby city as well?

This situation exposes a real jacked up mindset of the role and purpose of local government.

That is a good question. Who is supposed to have provided fire service for the county and why didn't they?

coadie · #27 10-07-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

That is a good question. Who is supposed to have provided fire service for the county and why didn't they?

In 2008 the county had a meeting and didn't want a county wide program.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20Count...Commission.pdf

38 page report.

jfrog · #28 10-07-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

In 2008 the county had a meeting and didn't want a county wide program.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20Count...Commission.pdf

38 page report.

The first section of that report is very telling. The guy whose house burned down should blame the county and not either the fire department or city of south fulton. It wasn't the city of south fultons job to provide him with fire service. It was either his job to pay for fire service or for the county to provide it. Neither of these things happened.

rgcraig · #29 10-07-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

The city fire department of South Fulton is a volunteer fire department?

I think you read it wrong. The city fire department of South Fulton ONLY charges 75 dollars to county residents for fire service. The city dwellers don't have to pay that 75 dollar fee.

From the article cited:

I didn't read anything - it's on the news here and they are a volunteer firemen.

coadie · #30 10-07-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

The first section of that report is very telling. The guy whose house burned down should blame the county and not either the fire department or city of south fulton. It wasn't the city of south fultons job to provide him with fire service. It was either his job to pay for fire service or for the county to provide it. Neither of these things happened.

It kinda says they understand the consequences of not having rural fire service when the majority of calls were rural.