Opt-In Fire Protection

[EvilMonkey]

You're still not really defending this policy or the decisions made. They could have put out the fire. They could have billed him later even if no formal mechanism exists. Instead of expanding this policy, they can get these payments covered in other manners so situations like this don't arise.

 

What they should not have done, either as government officials or decent human beings, is let this man's house burn down and then head out there to put out the remains. The mayor could have chosen to handle this differently regardless of what the policy is.

 

I notice the theme in your posts that this man needs to be punished for his actions. "bit him in the ass" "learn his lesson" "bill him up the wazoo so hard". Yes, he chose poorly, but that decision could have been rectified without much difficulty and without harm to anyone else; why is this suffering and punishment necessary? What good does that serve?

Maybe he will remember to pay the bill next time? What good would a few hundred extra dollars do? 'Forget' to pay it 3 or 4 more years and you have your fine back. You are saying they should have done things without a plan in place. Put it out and charged him more. OK, they put it out and send him a bill for $10,000. Now he disputes that bill as reasonable and refuses to pay. It goes to court, where everyone loses except the lawyers. Or they bill him somethign small like $500, which he pays and then forgets about sometime in the near future. There are a lot fo things the town should have done prior to this. Should have not gone in the first place if he hadn't paid, or had a plan to put it out and bill afterwards in place beforehand. But they didn't. The homeowner should have also just paid his damn bill, and this post would never be here.

 

"but that decision could have been rectified without much difficulty and without harm to anyone else;". Do we really know that? Firefighters get hurt fighting fires, anythign cold have happened, opening the town up to lots of insurance liability. Just sayin.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Alpha Dog

[StrangeSox]

I'll say it again: yes, he chose poorly, but that decision could have been rectified without much difficulty and without harm to anyone else; why is this suffering and punishment necessary? What good does that serve? They let his house burn down over $75. They did not save any money by letting it burn and then preventing it from spreading (and any competent fire department should prevent fires from spreading if they are able).

 

Again, What good does that serve? Why is this suffering and punishment necessary? If, as a society, we can prevent great harm coming to a fellow human being, a citizen and a neighbor, with minimal risk and cost to ourselves, why shouldn't we?

 

Do we really know that? Firefighters get hurt fighting fires, anythign cold have happened, opening the town up to lots of insurance liability. Just sayin.

 

That's a pretty weak cop-out. You'd also need to show that performing this service would open them up to liability beyond their typical operating liability.

Edited October 8, 2010 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

I'll say it again: yes, he chose poorly, but that decision could have been rectified without much difficulty and without harm to anyone else; why is this suffering and punishment necessary? What good does that serve? They let his house burn down over $75. They did not save any money by letting it burn and then preventing it from spreading (and any competent fire department should prevent fires from spreading if they are able).

 

Again, What good does that serve? Why is this suffering and punishment necessary? If, as a society, we can prevent great harm coming to a fellow human being, a citizen and a neighbor, with minimal risk and cost to ourselves, why shouldn't we?

 

 

 

That's a pretty weak cop-out. You'd also need to show that performing this service would open them up to liability beyond their typical operating liability.

LIke you need to show that it could have been put out with minimal or no risk to the firefighters. We are just gonna have to disagree. To me, you can't seem to get past the 'compassion, compassion, compassion' part of the argument. kinda like the Dems saying everything they do is 'for the kids' or some such tripe.

[kapkomet]

So I have a question. Why wouldn't the insurance company either raise his rates by $75 and pay the fee themselves, or demand in order to be insured that he have the fee paid? Or did I miss that somewhere?

 

[StrangeSox]

LIke you need to show that it could have been put out with minimal or no risk to the firefighters. We are just gonna have to disagree. To me, you can't seem to get past the 'compassion, compassion, compassion' part of the argument. kinda like the Dems saying everything they do is 'for the kids' or some such tripe.

 

I can't get past the "they didn't have to let his house burn down and are heartless bastards for doing so", you can't get past the "he didn't pay the $75! he deserved it!"

 

Maybe that does sum up liberals v conservatives.

[StrangeSox]

So I have a question. Why wouldn't the insurance company either raise his rates by $75 and pay the fee themselves, or demand in order to be insured that he have the fee paid? Or did I miss that somewhere?

 

I made a comment about that, wondering if the insurance company would deny any claim because he failed to get insurance and what the bank would do if their was a mortgage on the property. It does seem odd.

[Balta1701]

I made a comment about that, wondering if the insurance company would deny any claim because he failed to get insurance and what the bank would do if their was a mortgage on the property. It does seem odd.

I have to imagine that the insurance company had no idea this situation was even possible.

[NorthSideSox72]

I know this seems hard to believe for people here, but...

 

1. This guy is an idiot

 

AND (not OR)

 

2. This policy is all kinds of stupid, costly, and likely illegal

 

Why anyone is trying to characterize it as one or the other is beyond me.

 

[Texsox]

I am still wondering if the fire department could be held liable if (it didn't they wetted down the fence line) the neighbor's house burned down because they allowed a containable fire to grow out of control. Sorry Misses O'Leary we can't respond to your barn fire, you didn't pay the fee.

[Texsox]

Also wondering if an undocumented worker pays the fee, is he covered?

 

 

[Balta1701]

[G&T]

I am still wondering if the fire department could be held liable if (it didn't they wetted down the fence line) the neighbor's house burned down because they allowed a containable fire to grow out of control. Sorry Misses O'Leary we can't respond to your barn fire, you didn't pay the fee.

 

This is a good question, and knowing nothing in particular about the laws in that state, I can't give a certian answer, but my logic says yes, they would be liable.

 

The question here is one of duty. Assuming the policy is entirely legal, they only owe a duty to extinguish or prevent fires to those who paid the fee. If the fire had burned down a payor's house while the firefighters were present and able to prevent it from happening, they would have breached that duty. And there would be causation because they literally did nothing.

 

This is similar to a wild fire. Firefighters try to extinguish a fire before it can burn down homes of the people they owe a duty to. They then sue the person responsible for the wild fire if the cause is unnatural for the cost of putting that fire out (which they probably never receive but the person ends up in prison). Here, they were (arguably) within their right to permit this house to burn, but they had to prevent it from spreading. If the fire spreads to a payor's house, then they breach the duty. In fact, they should be sued for any damage done as a result of their failure to make an effort to put the fire out.

In short, they should have put the fire out and made the homeowner pay.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a good question, and knowing nothing in particular about the laws in that state, I can't give a certian answer, but my logic says yes, they would be liable.

 

The question here is one of duty. Assuming the policy is entirely legal, they only owe a duty to extinguish or prevent fires to those who paid the fee. If the fire had burned down a payor's house while the firefighters were present and able to prevent it from happening, they would have breached that duty. And there would be causation because they literally did nothing.

 

This is similar to a wild fire. Firefighters try to extinguish a fire before it can burn down homes of the people they owe a duty to. They then sue the person responsible for the wild fire if the cause is unnatural for the cost of putting that fire out (which they probably never receive but the person ends up in prison). Here, they were (arguably) within their right to permit this house to burn, but they had to prevent it from spreading. If the fire spreads to a payor's house, then they breach the duty. In fact, they should be sued for any damage done as a result of their failure to make an effort to put the fire out.

In short, they should have put the fire out and made the homeowner pay.

There is also a potential Duty to Act problem here. In many states, people like firefighters, paramedics, etc., are REQUIRED to act in aid, regardless of jurisdiction.

 

[G&T]

There is also a potential Duty to Act problem here. In many states, people like firefighters, paramedics, etc., are REQUIRED to act in aid, regardless of jurisdiction.

 

I don't think TN has that law. In any event, my opinion is based on the policy being legal. If there is a duty to act law, then this scheme would be in contravention of the law, their actions in not providing aid would be negligence per se and the remaining analysis is moot.

[hogan873]

I briefly heard about this when it happened but I didn't pay much attention. Now that I've read about it, I'd have to agree that it's a terrible policy and the guy is an idiot. He says he forgot, but you never know. Especially when he made the comment about he thought they would put out the fire anyway even if he hadn't paid.

 

I'm surprised the firefighters didn't act anyway. If TN doesn't have a Duty to Act law, it still surprises me. But $75 a year? And the guy didn't pay. And the fire department let the house burn down...over $75.

[BigSqwert]

A timely news story