To have or not to have

[jt4a]

The department I run with is a full time department. The problem we are having as I see it. Is that we do not have any written SOP's or SOG's. The Chiefs posistion on this is that if we had written guidelines and they were not followed and a mistake was made, then the department would be liable. This has resulted in fire and EMS operations being handled differently based on what shift is working and who the officers are. Each Battalion Chief has their own way of doing things. We recently promoted some new lieutenants for a new station, me being one of them. I makes my job even tougher not having any rules or guidelines to go by. And it really gets intersesting when one of the BC's is filling in for my chief. Now I have taken classes through the National Fire Academy and I have a A.A.S. degree in fire science. So I use the education I have gained to get through the shift and I have lost some skin off my rear end a few times.

My question is. Is this the norm for the fire service or to most departments have some type of guidelines or operations manual to go by?

Thanks for the input and stay safe.

[PAVolunteer]

Originally posted by jt4a
My question is. Is this the norm for the fire service or to most departments have some type of guidelines or operations manual to go by?
There are rules/guidelines in place, regardless of whether or not your chief has decided to put them in writing and make them specific to your department. The NFPA, OSHA, and common industry standards have already done that for you. If you don't have your own guidelines in place, and common NFPA, OSHA, or other industry standards are not followed, you're still in for a world of hurt. Just ask Lairdsville (NFPA??? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING NFPA!!!). Furthermore, having no rules/guidelines in place could be seen by twisted persons as the chief saying, "anything goes - do what you like!" - essentially allowing anarchy. That, obviously wouldn't be good for the department from a liability standpoint.

Using the argument that having no guidelines in place will save the department from liability is absolutely ridiculous. That would be like a bungy jumping company telling people to jump, and not using bungy cords so that the customer couldn't sue them if the bungy cord broke. Maybe that's a stretch (okay, sorry) but it's the same idea.

Finally, I'm not sure I would want to have someone running the show who doesn't care enough to specialize generic rules/guidelines and tactics to my department.

So, yes, it is the norm to have guidelines in place and/or a manual to go by.

Stay Safe

[LadyCapn]

Personally, and I am only offering my opinion, but I would think that the Department would be in a far worse position liability wise NOT having SOP's or SOG's.

In a matter of self protection. The Department develops SOP's or SOG's as a guideline for operations. It then conveys that information to the Officers and crews and does whatever training is necessary. IF these guidelines are not followed in a particular incident, and a damn good reason or excuse is not offered, then the Department itself is protected. The person who chose to ignore SOP's or SOG's is now responsible for their actions. Yes, in a civil suit the Department may still be named, but better than having the guilty party saying "No one ever told me what we were supposed to do in this situation" "It's their fault, I was never given instructions for this situation"

Without SOG's the Department is fully responsible. With SOG"s there is some onus on the individual to follow them.

[EastKyFF]

Your chief needs major help from a lawyer, and quick. If you do not have SOP's, someone will find them for you when they sue you.

[greentrucks]

WOW, My department has a book that is 3" thick. Find a lawyer fast your chief needs to relize he is more liable not having any. I think if you write them right you can help cover the butts of everyone in the officer staff.If he doesn't it could be very possible of jail time if something goes wrong.:eek:
Don't be happy until he writes some kind of guide lines. GOOD LUCK
Say good buy to new trucks you guys are going to be paying fines for a while if osha finds it.

[Dalmatian90]

The NFPA, OSHA, and common industry standards have already done that for you.

Say good buy to new trucks you guys are going to be paying fines for a while if osha finds it.

Yeah, except that Ohio isn't an OSHA state, so that stuff pretty much doesn't count.

Now, about NFPA, let's do a Lexis-Nexis legal search on "NFPA" and "National Fire Protection Association" and look for fire department/firefighters. I'm not paying 9$ for the full cases, but the opening paragraphs tell a lot.

I checked my home state, CT, plus OH, and for the heck of it kinda randomly chose CA, NY, PA, and MD because their big states, have lots of Firefighters, and if F.D.s were ending up in court frequently over NFPA you'd think they'd show up there.

Connectiuct
Ramos v. Town of Branford, (AC 20449), APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 2, 2001, Argued, June 12, 2001,

In tort action, simply proving that employer failed to abide by established regulations was insufficient to raise material question of fact, sufficient to go to jury, because not abiding by regulations does not establish intent requirement.
============================== ====
Ohio
Jackson v. Alert Fire & Safety Equipment, Inc., No. 89-1770, Supreme Court of Ohio, November 19, 1990, Submitted, March 6, 1991, Decided, ., As Amended.

OVERVIEW: Summary judgment was properly entered on the strict liability and implied warranty claims where the firefighters failed to allege that the suppliers had actual knowledge of the defects or that they were expected to have knowledge of the same.
===================

Kelley v. Cairns & Bros., No. 15882, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, Summit County, July 14, 1993, Decided, Reporter's Note: A motion to certify the record to the Supreme Court of Ohio was overruled in (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 1410, 623 N.E.2d 566. For earlier case, see Jackson v. Alert Fire & Safety Equip., Inc. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d Ohio St.3d 48, 567 N.E.2d 1027.

OVERVIEW: Summary judgment for city was proper in firefighters' action for injuries due to defective protective gear because no evidence was presented to show that city was aware that gear did not meet industry standards and city's conduct was not intentional.
============================== =========

New York: None.

============================== =========

Pennsylvania: None.

============================== =========

California: None.

============================== =========

Maryland: None.

============================== =========

All Federal Cases:
Hartnett v. Globe Firefighter Suits, No. 97-2156, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 1998, Argued, June 29, 1998, Decided, RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.,

OVERVIEW: Virginia law did not favor reliance on expert testimony to prove a products liability claim. When the firefighter relied on his expert, that testimony had to be supported by evidence such as test data or relevant literature in the field.

=============

Walsh v. Emergency One, No. 93-1149, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, October 27, 1993, Argued, June 21, 1994, Decided

OVERVIEW: A firefighter's negligence in not wearing a seat belt was not a bar to recovery, but evidence of the breach was relevant to the calculation of damages under the negligence count.

==============

In re One Meridian Fire Litig., CIVIL ACTION No. 91-2171, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, April 29, 1994, Decided, April 29, 1994, Filed

OVERVIEW: A manufacturer's nozzles were unreasonably dangerous where it failed to warn a fire department that they would perform poorly in a high rise building. The manufacturer was not entitled to summary judgment against plaintiffs injured in the fire.

===============

Walsh v. Emergency One, NO. 89 C 9402, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, July 16, 1992, Decided, July 16, 1992, Filed; July 20, 1992, Docketed

OVERVIEW: A fireman was entitled to maintain his claim against a manufacturer after he was thrown from a fire truck even though he could not present evidence involving his potential to develop future illness.

==============

At the risk of bursting bubbles here, but the "You'll get sued if you violate NFPA!" is frankly borderline on an urban legend. It happens very rarely, and with even less success.

You'll get sued successfuly if you do something really freaking stupid. But not following NFPA and getting sued are two seperate issues.

Now, this doesn't mean the Chief's opinion in this case is correct that somehow having SOPs is a bad thing if you get sued. Basic written orders are kinda a fundemental thing for the fire service -- it's called organization.

Matt

[PAVolunteer]

Dalmation, I don't want to get into a debate in regards to negligence and gross negligence ... but ... each of the cases you sited deals with negligence (only).

Certainly, any chief who refuses to acknowledge the guidelines established for him by the NFPA, OSHA (regardless of whether or not they are an OSHA state, it is still accepted as a guideline for the industry), and common industry standards by refusing to establish a set of Standard Operating Procedures/Guidelines, clearly displays blatant disregard for his own responsibilities and is bordering on reckless behavior with no consideration for the safety and well-being of those under his control (holy run-on sentence, batman). At the very least, this spells a strong argument for gross negligence - which also spells trouble.

You are correct, not following NFPA (in and of itself) will not, in most cases, get you sued, successfully. However, "doing something really freaking stupid" will. So will exhibiting blatant disregard for the safety of others. Not establishing SOP/G's is "doing something really freaking stupid" and is a blatant disregard for the safety of others.

Stay Safe

[Weruj1]

my o my ..............another dept that will for sure make the NIOSH reports !!!!!!! SHEEEEEEEESH is it still 1960 ?:mad:

[martinm]

Just to throw another equation in to the ring...

If you don't adhere to any SOPS or written instructions, than basically you appear to be running on the words and decisions of your Chief and his deputies while engaged in firefighting operations? "Your life in their hands" so to speak. If you have nothing to say that you should'nt carry out a certain function or act, say for example re entering a building with less than 25% air left in your set, but your Chief tells you he orders you to go in and you sustain an injury, it would seem your only way to compensation would be to sue the Chief as his actions led to your downfall.

If I were him I would be looking at getting some insurance against getting sued and fast.