Emergency services - Could this fire department be sued?

Author

Could this fire department be sued?

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2005-01-06, 11:09 am

Fri December 31, 2004

Body seen 2 weeks after fire

By Carrie Coppernoll
Staff Writer

CHICKASHA - The body of Larry Lee lay on the floor of his rented
home for more than two weeks before firefighters found the
charred remains.

"They left him 17 days under that refrigerator," said his mother,
Lucille Carroll.

Lee, 57, died in a Dec. 5 fire at his rent house in Chickasha.
Firefighters didn't find him at first, so his mother filed a missing
person report and asked them to look again. He was discovered
Dec. 22.

The fire started because wood and scraps were being burned
in a 55-gallon drum inside the home, interim Fire Chief
Ronnie Kessler said. Lee was using the barrel to warm the
house after his utilities had been shut off, Kessler
said.

Lee bought an electric heater after his gas was turned off,
but when he returned home, his lights and water had been
cut off, too, his mother said.

Lee's landlord could not be reached for comment.

Firefighters did several "walk-throughs," searching for
the victim, Kessler said. Though the fire was reported in
mid-afternoon, smoke and debris made searching difficult.
Missing the body was unintentional, he said.

"This is the first time that it's happened to us," he said.

Firefighters occasionally can't find victims because bodies
blend in with debris, state Fire Marshal Robert Doke said.
Bodies can be partially consumed by the fire or hidden under
rubble, Doke said.

"It's tough on the family. It's tough on the firefighters,"
he said. "It's just a bad situation for all involved."

Carroll said she and her family are looking at the
possibility of suing the fire department.

"I want to do everything I can for Larry," she said "People
need to be honest and treat him like a human being."

Carroll said that, at first, she thought her son had been
robbed. He recently had received his modest disability check
and an even smaller welfare check.

Carroll said she is angry her son wasn't found sooner. He
was buried Wednesday.

"I hope God will punish them," she said.
-----------------------------------------

heman

2005-01-06, 11:09 am

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:44:13 -0500, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

yes they can be sued. you can sue for anything.
they will be sued for not doing a secondary properly.
it was a very likely hood the victim was there. it took a week and a
second request to get the job done right.

they will be sued for distress cause to the family. will the
complainant get/win. yes. they will get a settlement which is always
cheaper.

honestly did the fd do a wrong, yes. they should have combed the
scene. to be 100% absolutely certain.

Bernhard Nowotny

2005-01-14, 7:09 am

firechief wrote:
> Then again, there was the gal who spilled hot coffee between
> her legs and got a great deal of money from McDonald's.

This is a misreported and misunderstood case, very close to
a real urban legend [1]. It happened really, but it _was_
McDonald's fault.
http://www.ntla.org/ff-mcdonalds.htm tells the story behind.

HTH,

B.

[1] http://www.snopes.com lists several other urban legends of
such kind.

--
Bernhard Nowotny
85625 Glonn, Germany (PGP ID: 0x17B6F58C DSS/DH)
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
-- Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper

mattdeg

2005-01-14, 11:11 am

Wow, after reading all the facts I can draw only one conclusion...
We need tort reform.

Matt
Careful, our coffee is served Hot!

Carey Gregory

2005-01-14, 7:14 pm

Bernhard Nowotny <bnow@gmx.de> wrote:

>firechief wrote:
>
>This is a misreported and misunderstood case, very close to
>a real urban legend [1]. It happened really, but it _was_
>McDonald's fault.
>http://www.ntla.org/ff-mcdonalds.htm tells the story behind.

Thanks, Bernhard. I've heard this case debated elsewhere at length, and
when you've heard *all* the facts (like the jury did), you almost have to
agree McDonalds was at fault. There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out
there, but this isn't one of them.

The URL you cited above leaves out a couple of pertinent facts. The
plaintiff presented company memos in court showing that McDonalds
intentionally served their coffee far hotter than normal to discourage
people from taking free refills. Other internal documents showed that
McDonalds knew their unusually hot coffee would result in burns and they
even calculated what those lawsuits would cost. However, the cost of
settling the lawsuits was less than the money saved by discouraging free
refills, so they went ahead and made their coffee far hotter than coffee
served anywhere else.

Basically, McDonalds intentionally chose to inflict burns in order to
maximize profits. They made a hard, cold business decision and the outcome
was exactly as they expected. Knowing that, I would award damages to the
plaintiff too.

Carey Gregory

2005-01-16, 7:11 am

Bernhard Nowotny

2005-01-19, 2:11 am