Firefighters let house burn down

IMO regardless of how you look at it, this was a bad business move. If all they care about is the money they could have made a killing of this guy (my other post has suggestions of what could have been done)

It's not about money. It's about following procedures. Simply paying a flat fee in order to obtain a one time service for a life-time fee is gaining the advantage by cutting the cost. That one time you get into an automobile accident doesn't mean that you can just pay insurance for that month. When you pay for any type of insurance, you pay for months and possibly years without accidents or problems occurring. That is the true cost of insurance, it is unmeasurable. The fact that you are paying for something that you may never use, but in turn will drastically help you when you DO get into a major accident somewhere along the road. Attempting to pay the fee, after the damage has been done is not how insurance works. If insurance based businesses allowed this to occur, then they would lose a large majority of their profit. Insurance companies cash in on uncertainty. The Cranick's attempted to cash in after they were certain that their home was jeopardized and that they needed help. That's not the way it has worked in Obion County for the past 20 years, that's not the way the Fulton Fire Department works, and that's not the way insurance companies work. Cranick didn't pay his insurance and lost everything that he owned. That sucks, but welcome to life. Nobody owes you anything, especially spoon feeding special service to address personal incompetence. Cranick should learn his lesson and pay the $75 fee instead of demanding preferential treatment and compensation. A bad business move would be listening to the demands of someone who is not your customer and allowing them to break the rules of the business you operate. That would destroy the trust that everyone else placed when they invested in a given company.

@Erebus - how so?

If they had stated, "You did not pay the tax, pay $1000 now and we'll hose down your house" what would the headlines have been?

"HOUSE CAUGHT ON FIRE, FIREMEN EXTORT $1000 TO FIX". The republicans would have had a field day with that one. Regardless of what the firemen did, they were going to get flak for it.

Should a person who forgets to pay something also get treatment? If a person did not pay for health insurance should he expect to get health insurance? I understand the horror that this man went through as he's likely now homeless and penniless all because of a $75 mistake, but he cannot in turn blame the system for being bad on his own incompetence. The second he takes blame for what happened is the second he matures.

What firefighters did is against the law you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

Specially under that last one. Firefighters have the DUTY OF CARING.

Duty of care does not apply here. They are not "performing an act which would foreseeably harm others". They are simply not performing an act that a household did not pay them to do. Firefighters would have a duty of care to reasonably carry insured people out of a fire-ridden house since that is extremely dangerous. But they have no duty of care to help these people nor their house because they are uninsured and did not pay.

If a person who was dying of cancer did not have insurance, would you cry foul that a health insurance company did not give them money?

The title of this topic should be "Lack of Firefighter insurance causes house to burn" rather than "Firefighters let house burn down".

Crimes can be performed by ACTION of performed by OMISSION. When you omit an action, you're causing the same legal effects, specially when the law and the jurisprudence has settled precedents of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)

No insurance means no coverage.

In your world, if you get sick, sue a doctor! They should have helped you though they have no obligation to do so. Matter of fact, sue every doctor you can find.

I still think it should be the duty and priority of a firefighter to PUT OUT A FIRE, insurance or taxes or none at all. What is the damned point of just sitting there watching someone's house burn down when they're basicaly begging you to put out the fire? Seems so... Heartless.

Yeah it is heartless. Its like a Doctor seeing a person dying and letting them die in the street...

Yeah it is heartless. Its like a Doctor seeing a person dying and letting them die in the street...

Loss of human life is definitely equivocatable to destruction of personal posessions.

No insurance means no coverage.

In your world, if you get sick, sue a doctor! They should have helped you though they have no obligation to do so. Matter of fact, sue every doctor you can find.

That's actually how it works mind you :/

Failure to provide medical treatment

In general terms, doctors and hospitals have a duty to provide appropriate care for their patients, and an omission may breach that duty except where an adult patient of ordinary capacity terminates the duty by refusing consent. There is a conflict in public policy. The policy of patient autonomy enshrines a right of self-determination—patients have a right to live their lives how they wish, even if it will damage their health or lead to premature death. Society’s interest is in upholding the concept that all human life is sacred and should be preserved if at all possible. It is now well established that the right of the individual is paramount. In Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) (1994) 1 WLR 290, a patient diagnosed as a chronic, paranoid schizophrenic refused to allow his gangrenous foot to be amputated. This was permitted because his general capacity showed him capable of understanding the nature, purpose and effect of the life-saving treatment. In Re B (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (2002) 2 AER 449 the presumption that an adult has full capacity can be rebutted if:
(a) the person is unable to understand the information relevant to the decision, especially as to the likely consequences of having or not having the treatment; or
(b) the patient is unable to use the information and weigh it in the balance as part of the process of arriving at a decision.

Ms B was a competent but paralysed, ventilator-dependent patient, and she won the right to have the ventilator turned off. Although the switching-off had to be performed by a doctor, and this is an act intentionally causing death, the law characterises this as an omission because it amounts simply to a cessation of the ongoing treatment. The doctors’ conduct qualifies as lawful "passive euthanasia". If the particular doctor invited to omit further treatment has conscientious objections, a doctor who will undertake the omission should be sought. But, in more general cases of necessity, urgent surgery may not be unlawful to preserve life pending any judicial decision. Similarly, when the patient is a minor, emergency treatment to preserve life will not be unlawful (note the power to refer issues of consent to the courts under their wardship jurisdiction).

In death with dignity situations where a patient is incapable of communicating his wishes, a doctor may be relieved of his duty, as the House of Lords recognised in Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland (1993) AC 789. Here a patient who had survived for three years in a persistent vegetative state after suffering irreversible brain damage in the Hillsborough disaster continued to breathe normally, but was kept alive only by being fed through tubes. It was held that treatment could properly be withdrawn in such circumstances, because the best interests of the patient did not involve him being kept alive at all costs. Lord Goff nevertheless drew a fundamental distinction between acts and omissions in this context:
. . . the law draws a crucial distinction between cases in which a doctor decides not to provide, or to continue to provide, for his patient treatment or care which could or might prolong his life, and those in which he decides, for example by administering a lethal drug, actively to bring his patient's life to an end . . . the former may be lawful, either because the doctor is giving effect to his patient's wishes . . . or even in certain circumstances in which . . . the patient is incapacitated from stating whether or not he gives his consent. But it is not lawful for a doctor to administer a drug to his patient to bring about his death, even though that course is prompted by a humanitarian desire to end his suffering, however great that suffering may be.

Duty to act when contracted to do so

In R v Pittwood (1902), the defendant was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after he failed to close the gate on a level crossing as he was contracted to do. This caused a train to collide with a hay cart, and the court ruled that "a man might incur criminal liability from a duty arising out of contract."

Also:

Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
Emergency workers (police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, etc.) have a general duty to rescue the public within the scope of their employment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Only thing I have in mind is that the boss who had the authority over to spray or not to spray should have:
- made the exception and saved the house, on a relatively agreeable incentive
- publicized the awareness: The next time another uninsured house gets on fire, we will deploy all our firefighter troops to come and laugh at you

Not only would they gain points in public media's eyes and receive a fair payment from the houseowner, they also are likely to gain more subscriptions. What's better, the next time it happens, you won't be bombarded with half as much hatred. On the surface, this should be an act of mercy, in its core, it's a CYA move; either would've turned out better than what we have here.

Granted, this is considered with hindsight. But even without, I believe it isn't that hard. The only thing that would have turned out differently, should that action be taken, would be that nobody'd give a pomegranate about this town.

The firefighters were not contracted to help this home.

The firefighters were not in the duty of care to serve this home. In this case, an "adult patient of ordinary capacity [terminated] the duty by refusing consent" because the "patient" did not pay.

At the header of that article, it states, "the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty." The law imposes a duty for these firefighters to act if and only if their services have been contracted and paid for by the owner of the property. This did not happen, so these firefighters are not guilty of omission or failing to provide a contractual service.

Not only would they gain points in public media's eyes and receive a fair payment from the houseowner, they also are likely to gain more subscriptions. What's better, the next time it happens, you won't be bombarded with half as much hatred.

Why would they gain more subscriptions? If they had hosed the house even though the property owner did not pay, what incentive is that for other people to pay? I don't know about anyone else, but if I only had to pay for insurance when I absolutely needed it and got full benefits of doing so, I would never ever pay for insurance and only pay for it as I needed to. Sounds like a swell plan for me! No risk of me paying and receiving nothing.

If they had stated, "You did not pay the tax, pay $1000 now and we'll hose down your house" what would the headlines have been?

"HOUSE CAUGHT ON FIRE, FIREMEN EXTORT $1000 TO FIX". The republicans would have had a field day with that one. Regardless of what the firemen did, they were going to get flak for it.

Actually, if the firemen and the Cranicks kept shut about it, there would be no national news story. How would the townspeople know?

Why would they gain more subscriptions? If they had hosed the house even though the property owner did not pay, what incentive is that for other people to pay? I don't know about anyone else, but if I only had to pay for insurance when I absolutely needed it and got full benefits of doing so, I would never ever pay for insurance and only pay for it as I needed to. Sounds like a swell plan for me! No risk of me paying and receiving nothing.

Provided that the company (are they even a company) puts enough stress that this should be the one and only time it happens, they might.
Realistically, I also think they might take a hit by the paying people choosing to opt out of their subscriptions. But would you honestly do that, half suspecting their seriousness when they said there wouldn't be a next time?

I believe this Crankick guy was under the illusion that firefighters are compelled to fight fire, regardless the situations. Such an event as this will raise the awareness of the local population about their true policy. If the subscribers choose to discontinue their pay, it will be for a different reason than what Cranick had in mind; I'm thinking more of a "they'd save me right? They're humans after all" and not "Psh, why pay, they'll SURELY help me when the time of need comes".

I don't know about everyone else, but I wouldn't be taking chances on someone else's possible sympathy.

When the article says: ''describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril'' you can hold the party in peril as the property of this Cranick guy. The firefighters aren't an independent organization, but a branch off the administration.

Firefighting is a public service here whether you have insurance or not.

When the article says: ''describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril'' you can hold the party in peril as the property of this Cranick guy. The firefighters aren't an independent organization, but a branch off the administration.

You switched over to "Duty to Rescue".

A piece of property cannot be a party. A party is defined as an entity that can bring about a civil action in court. A house cannot bring a civil action to court - it is a piece of wood and has no legal rights. Because it cannot be a party, there is no duty to rescue it from peril it cannot feel. If there were people inside that building (there weren't), the firefighters would have a duty to rescue them. However, the firefighters do not have a duty to put out this fire.

Last post. Seriously.

You switched over to "Duty to Rescue".

A piece of property cannot be a party. A party is defined as an entity that can bring about a civil action in court. A house cannot bring a civil action to court - it is a piece of wood and has no legal rights. Because it cannot be a party, there is no duty to rescue it from peril it cannot feel. If there were people inside that building (there weren't), the firefighters would have a duty to rescue them. However, the firefighters do not have a duty to put out this fire.

Last post. Seriously.

What about animals, would they count?

After thinking about this more and reading more things on it, I don't really believe the firefighters did anything wrong, but morally it's just seen as a bad decision. But the world and laws we go by aren't based on moral decisions.

Firefighting is a public service here whether you have insurance or not.

Irrelevant, since it's very obviously an opt-in thing there.

Actually, if the firemen and the Cranicks kept shut about it, there would be no national news story. How would the townspeople know?

..... you'd really expect them to keep their mouth shut over something like that? Somebody in the fire department's gunna know sooner or later, and somebody's not guna be happy about it. That's all it takes for a "psst cranick didnt pay his 75$ n got his house hosed down, pass it on".

----------------

I was thinking of a really crappy number like 10,000 but yeah, for putting it that way, fiel has a point. =\

What about animals, would they count?

What is strange is that the Cranicks said it took two hours for the fire to travel from the trash barrels to the house. They could have saved numerous belongings, including the animals, during that two hours.

..... you'd really expect them to keep their mouth shut over something like that? Somebody in the fire department's gunna know sooner or later, and somebody's not guna be happy about it. That's all it takes for a "psst cranick didnt pay his 75$ n got his house hosed down, pass it on".

If the men in the fire department do not want to destroy the fund-line, they would not spread the word.