Manitoba Government sues 6 volunteer firefighters for negligence

[Ken07AOVette]

The Good Samaritan Act only protects first responders in Medical calls and accidents.

[Dewey Cox]

The owner probably found out insurance doesn't cover cash in the atm, and that was a significant part of his retirement bonfire. (Allegedly)
Seems to be a lot of small town hotels burning down all the time.

[scesfiremedic]

Rekindles are the number one cause for litigation against the fire service.

I would like to know what exactly was said as the article states “According to the suit one or more of the firefighters directed that the Hotel deactivate the Property's fire alarm and sprinkler system."

Did they also state to maintain a fire watch while the 2 systems were shut off (and document what the property owner was advised to do, Which is common practice)?

Not enough information provided in the article. Hopefully they did follow “standard operating procedures”. We’re becoming more and more like the US everyday.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

So the owner wanted a little insurance money.
Starts the fire in the cardboard.
Fire crews come and handle that.
Owner calls insurance company, nope not enough for a claim.
Hmm, let’s see.
Second fire.
Lose everything.
Make sure I get paid, I’m going to sue.
Get the settlement from insurance and some town money.
And so on.

Owner wanted a payday and that’s it.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

So the owner wanted a little insurance money.
Starts the fire in the cardboard.
Fire crews come and handle that.
Owner calls insurance company, nope not enough for a claim.
Hmm, let’s see.
Second fire.
Lose everything.
Make sure I get paid, I’m going to sue.
Get the settlement from insurance and some town money.
And so on.

Owner wanted a payday and that’s it.

That is the first thought that came to my mind.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

So the owner wanted a little insurance money.
Starts the fire in the cardboard.
Fire crews come and handle that.
Owner calls insurance company, nope not enough for a claim.
Hmm, let’s see.
Second fire.
Lose everything.
Make sure I get paid, I’m going to sue.
Get the settlement from insurance and some town money.
And so on.

Owner wanted a payday and that’s it.

I agree about owner wanting ins money but I doubt he talked to the ins company at 3:00 am in the morning.

[Off in the Bushes]

Who called in the alarm. Was it a monitoring company if it was it was the owners responsibility to inform them that the alarm was turned off and then the monitoring company to inform the owner of the policy procedure were fire protection is disabled. If the fire panel cannot be reset it I believe it is acceptable to have it disabled.

[barbless]

I'm sure there will be a full investigation as to how the fire was started in the first place. Then also how the second actually got started. These investigators do a great job of determining how and where it got started. Wish someone had taken a picture of the back side of the hotel cause the picture that is there only shows the upper level of the building burning. Figured would have seen some smoke or at least some glow coming out of the lower level windows. Fire up against a brick building on the outside hmmmmmm must have been one big pile of recycling against the wooden door.
My hat goes off to those who volunteer their services and risk their lives to help others in need. Not enough can be said for their dedication.
One has to think if alarms and sprinklers were disabled how could they stay open for business and do they have to post or inform their patrons of such?

[barbless]

Ya I know it shows the back in the video but the whole building is engulfed by then

[colroggal]

Originally Posted by brslk

"According to the suit, MLL had eight video lottery terminals in the hotel bar, and the Crown corporation estimates the cost of the machines lost in the blaze at $149,600. The hotel's owners say the building and contents were worth more than $2 million.

At the time of the fire, hotel owner Leslie Robertson told CBC News he lost three days' worth of money that was set to go to the bank and an ATM that was stocked with cash."

Hahahaha to say that the building and contents were worth more than $2m is a laugh to anyone that has been there. The place was an absolute crap hole that should have been torn down years ago.

It's also awfully suspicious that he had three days worth of money and an ATM stocked with cash right before it burns... no... that's not suspicious at all.. hahaha

Hopefully the owner will be charged with arson.

-Excuse me sir, where do you keep the matches?

-Right out back, beside the old newspapers and oily rags.

If it wasn't arson, we can quickly trace a more root source of negligence.

Colin

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by colroggal

-Excuse me sir, where do you keep the matches?

-Right out back, beside the old newspapers and oily rags.

If it wasn't arson, we can quickly trace a more root source of negligence.

Colin

Wouldn't that suck if you set a fire to collect the insurance and those pesky volunteer fire fighters put out the fire too soon? If only the fire would restart and finish the job. Even better if you could sue the firefighters to collect the cash that wasn't covered by insurance

I am thinking that several people are anxiously awaiting the investigation into the fires.

[Ken07AOVette]

I guarantee if I was named and it was found to be arson the counter claim would be sizable.
Do unto others

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I agree about owner wanting ins money but I doubt he talked to the ins company at 3:00 am in the morning.

Ever see that state farm commercial, guy on the phone, wife walks down the stairs, it’s 3 am , he’s on the phone with the insurance guy and she thinks it’s a woman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=47cAxRX3aDg

This one.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

Ever see that state farm commercial, guy on the phone, wife walks down the stairs, it’s 3 am , he’s on the phone with the insurance guy and she thinks it’s a woman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=47cAxRX3aDg

This one.

That’s it!!! I’m switching to State Farm!!!!

[Saskfly16]

With a small town fire department as a volunteer and it feels like half our training now is on how not to get sued. The town even put in dash cams in all the trucks.

Each captain is told to take pictures on there phones as often as they can because there’s a time stamp and location embedded in the picture to back up the written accounts.

As it is our department has given up water rescues because the training required is to much time wise and finically. There are serious discussions on letting us enter burning buildings to carry out fire suppression duties and rescue for the same reason.

All I can say is the avg volunteer lasts about 3 years before moving on for whatever reason. It takes around a year to qualify them and add the risks of getting sued. A already hard job of KEEPING volunteers will be almost impossible.

We always get enough people to sign up but keeping them is the hard part. This will not help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ken07AOVette]

'just' out of our County a neighboring town has paid firefighters, they get iirc ~$1800 per month minimum just for being on call plus hours after the minimum. Tough to keep free guys when other towns pay.
The big bonus for our squad is the County pays for all training, professional certification right up to training officer. More than a half dozen guys from here are full time paid firefighters on the base. 24 hours on, 24 off, 24 on, week off. Full benefits, huge wage and a pension when they retire. Tough to beat incentives like that.

[huntsolo1]

So the CBC story already says that it is arson. And worse, if it was indeed a "rekindle" then they may be liable...if they left it and it started again, big time oops! And most "volunteer" departments are actually paid a small amount for training or when they attend calls...this alleviates the so called "good samaritan act"...if they are paid and trained to do a job, then they are obliged to do it.

I'm not saying I agree with it, it sucks, but we all have to do our jobs to the level at which we are trained and paid...bum deal for sure!

[New Hunter Okotoks]

I wonder if the Owner spotted a couple guys running away from the fire wearing MAGA hats?

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by New Hunter Okotoks

I wonder if the Owner spotted a couple guys running away from the fire wearing MAGA hats?

Maybe it's an American owned company

Maybe the Americans own the Manitoban Gov...... *cough*

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by huntsolo1

So the CBC story already says that it is arson. And worse, if it was indeed a "rekindle" then they may be liable...if they left it and it started again, big time oops! And most "volunteer" departments are actually paid a small amount for training or when they attend calls...this alleviates the so called "good samaritan act"...if they are paid and trained to do a job, then they are obliged to do it.

I'm not saying I agree with it, it sucks, but we all have to do our jobs to the level at which we are trained and paid...bum deal for sure!

If it turns out to be arson, the owners should be more concerned about facing criminal charges than about suing the firefighters.

[Ken07AOVette]

I have to address some of your lines in order

Originally Posted by huntsolo1

So the CBC story already says that it is arson.

CBC can say whatever they want. They do quite often. Until the Provincial FI rules it is just a story.


And worse, if it was indeed a "rekindle" then they may be liable.

Depends on how it was relit. And liability In an arson case it not that cut and dried



.if they left it and it started again, big time oops!

Was it relit by the arsonist? Burden of proof is on the prosecutor/plaintiff


And most "volunteer" departments are actually paid a small amount for training or when they attend calls.

No. Very few. Once paid they are not volunteer.



..this alleviates the so called "good samaritan act"...

Wrong. That applies to medical calls only as stated several times already


if they are paid and trained to do a job, then they are obliged to do it.


Lol isn't every job that way? Volunteering is not a job.

A volunteer is that. There is nothing and nobody that can force a volunteer to any situation. General unforced rule is if you start you stay until relieved.

[huntsolo1]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

The Good Samaritan Act only protects first responders in Medical calls and accidents.

You may have stated this numerous times but that doesn’t make it true...the so called “Good Samaritan Act” is not for First Responders...not at all.

If you are a First Responder you are obliged and required to perform your duties up to the level of training which you are trained too, professional or volunteer.

The Good Samaritan Act protects regular civilians, not first responders, in a case where they may try and help someone and inadvertently “do it wrong”. As an example; a regular civilian is having dinner in a restaurant and someone drops having a heart attack, the civilian try’s to help but it is found out later after the person dies that the CPR the civilian performed was incorrect...they would be protected by the Good Samaritan act. Same goes for non medical calls...

The Good Samaritan Act is for civilians, First Responders are held to a higher standard, sometimes even while “off duty”.

Cheers...

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by huntsolo1

You may have stated this numerous times but that doesn’t make it true...the so called “Good Samaritan Act” is not for First Responders...not at all.

If you are a First Responder you are obliged and required to perform your duties up to the level of training which you are trained too, professional or volunteer.

The Good Samaritan Act protects regular civilians, not first responders, in a case where they may try and help someone and inadvertently “do it wrong”. As an example; a regular civilian is having dinner in a restaurant and someone drops having a heart attack, the civilian try’s to help but it is found out later after the person dies that the CPR the civilian performed was incorrect...they would be protected by the Good Samaritan act. Same goes for non medical calls...

The Good Samaritan Act is for civilians, First Responders are held to a higher standard, sometimes even while “off duty”.

Cheers...

The point is it does not cover firefighters in fire fighting duties. Did I not say that?

[yukon254]

Im a volunteer on our local EMS crew, and although we havent been sued since Ive been on, we have been told it can happen. I guess in an average year Yukon EMS deals with over 20 lawsuits. It is drilled into us that EVERYTHING must be recorded on paper....if it isn't on the PCR, it didnt happen. To sue the fire department or EMS is like giving out speeding tickets at the indy 500....shouldnt be allowed, especially the volunteer crews.

[huntinstuff]

100 yr old building

Tons of cash inside

Oh I love this.....

I recall a lumber store burned down in a dying hamlet once....

I smell something

[JareS]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

'just' out of our County a neighboring town has paid firefighters, they get iirc ~$1800 per month minimum just for being on call plus hours after the minimum. Tough to keep free guys when other towns pay.
The big bonus for our squad is the County pays for all training, professional certification right up to training officer. More than a half dozen guys from here are full time paid firefighters on the base. 24 hours on, 24 off, 24 on, week off. Full benefits, huge wage and a pension when they retire. Tough to beat incentives like that.

Wildfire fighters and city structural fire fighters get paid, why shouldn't rural fire fighters?

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by JareS

Wildfire fighters and city structural fire fighters get paid, why shouldn't rural fire fighters?

I agree.

The only way it will ever happen is if all the volunteers walk.

[huntsolo1]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

The point is it does not cover firefighters in fire fighting duties. Did I not say that?

The point is that the Act doesn't cover Firefighters for any circumstance, like somebody was stating earlier, and then you argued with me earlier when I said that it would not apply in this instance.

We can go back and forth all day long, it sounded like you were saying that First Responders could indeed be covered under the act in certain circumstances like medical etc.)...and that is wrong, plain and simple. If I misunderstood you, fine, sorry...just didn't want a bunch of volunteers out there thinking that they would be covered by the Act while preforming ANY of their duties...

Pretty sure we've beat this one to death, I'm out.

[huntsolo1]

And yes, they should all be paid, rural, professional structural, wild land etc. Problem is, rural areas don't have the tax base, that's why they don't get paid full time. It doesn't matter if they "all walk away", it's taxes...plain and simple. There are gated communities in the States (maybe here too, who knows) that have their own "private" fire departments, because they can pay for them out of their own taxes/dues...otherwise these areas would be under the regular city jurisdiction...which would make their home insurance too high, so these high end communities make the communal decision to pay for their own departments...thus lowing their insurance premiums. It's all money...no tax base, no salary for the department members...

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by huntsolo1

And yes, they should all be paid, rural, professional structural, wild land etc. Problem is, rural areas don't have the tax base, that's why they don't get paid full time. It doesn't matter if they "all walk away", it's taxes...plain and simple. There are gated communities in the States (maybe here too, who knows) that have their own "private" fire departments, because they can pay for them out of their own taxes/dues...otherwise these areas would be under the regular city jurisdiction...which would make their home insurance too high, so these high end communities make the communal decision to pay for their own departments...thus lowing their insurance premiums. It's all money...no tax base, no salary for the department members...

Yup. Half the appeal of living in hamlets and such is low taxes. Can’t have the best of both worlds.