House in Tennessee burns to the ground because fire service charge was not paid.

Run_to_da_hills

Firemen in Tennessee refuse to put out a house fire because the family did not pay the annual fire service charge of $75. The only reason that they turned up was to stand by in case the fire spread to adjoining residences.

Only in America. I just hope to God that this type of carry on dose not spread over here if the fire service ever gets privatized. :eek:

http://presstv.ir/detail/145375.html

MagicSean

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Firemen in Tennessee refuse to put out a house fire because the family did not pay the annual fire service charge of $75. The only reason that they turned up was to stand by in case the fire spread to adjoining residences.

Only in America. I just hope to God that this type of carry on dose not spread over here if the fire service ever gets privatized. :eek:

http://presstv.ir/detail/145375.html

I'm sure the firemen would have acted if someone was trapped inside. I don't see the problem here. They were aware of the charge and refused to pay it. It's like going to an insurance company after an accident and demanding they pay you compensation.

super_furry

What a staggering lack of human decency.

actuallylike

k_mac wrote: »

It's like going to an insurance company after an accident and demanding they pay you compensation.

Emergency services should never be compared to insurance companies. Pretty much what the whole health care debate is about, shame it seems to have reached the fire services as well (albeit on a smaller scale).

Joey the lips

I think its awful... I think what should have happened is the client should have paid back years and a penality... This can be levied by the state on the mortage and insurance claim...#

To call an emergency service and they refuse must be shocking....

Then again is this not the american south... Strange customs down that way to us irish...

Run_to_da_hills

k_mac wrote: »

I'm sure the firemen would have acted if someone was trapped inside. I don't see the problem here. They were aware of the charge and refused to pay it. It's like going to an insurance company after an accident and demanding they pay you compensation.

A homeless person could have been squatting in the property. This is too important a matter to be taking chances. They are either operating an emergency service or a business. They cannot do both.

MagicSean

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A homeless person could have been squatting in the property. This is too important a matter to be taking chances. They are either operating an emergency service or a business. They cannot do both.

They are operating a business. This is the price for privatising.

charlemont

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Firemen in Tennessee refuse to put out a house fire because the family did not pay the annual fire service charge of $75. The only reason that they turned up was to stand by in case the fire spread to adjoining residences.

Only in America. I just hope to God that this type of carry on dose not spread over here if the fire service ever gets privatized. :eek:

http://presstv.ir/detail/145375.html

if brian cowen hears about this, guess what new charge will be in the budget...actually iv a great idea , why dont we set fire to br...no wait im not going there ....

Finnbar01

They should have put out the fire and then charged a fee for doing so. Way over the cost of the subscription.

Manic Moran

I seem to recall that they asked if anyone was inside.

Here's the catch. The fire service in question belonged to the city. The house in question was not within the city, it was within the county. The city council can pass an ordnance requiring that a tax or levvy be paid to provide fire services. Failure to pay the taxes can result in a loss of your house by lien and posession, let alone by fire. (If your house burns, they'll still come out as part of the service provided by the city, just expect the lien to hit you).

The city council cannot do that in the County. They cannot mandate that a fee be paid, and so there is no expectation of service. It's not a business, but it has to make ends meet as well. When the appliance is out of its area of operations, it isn't available to deal with fires within the city, which the mandated taxes are paying for, another appliance needs to be provided. If I were a city dweller, paying my taxes, I would be extremely irked to discover that my home had just burned down because the fire truck was out dealing with a fire for someone not in my city, and not paying the taxes to support the fire service.

Bottom line, the homeowners effecitvely expected a free service. No taxes, no subscriptions, nothing, but the fire truck would still come out when asked. That's no way to run a country. Does anyone here pay their taxes only after they decide they have an immediate personal need for the services provided?

NTM

Run_to_da_hills

Finnbar01 wrote: »

They should have put out the fire and then charged a fee for doing so. Way over the cost of the subscription.

Also not a good idea, this only encourages DIY firemen especially with chimney fires.

This is quite a tough situation, in my opinion.

On one hand, I do think that they should have been charged when the Fire Service arrived. Charged more than $75, of course. If they agreed to pay, then the fire should have been put out.

If they did not agree to pay, then the fire should have been let run it's course (provided it did not endanger anyone).

If they weren't charged, or only charged $75, then I think everyone would stop paying and assume that they could get a sympathy vote from the Fire Service.


The occupants knew that by not paying, they risked their home. They took the chance, and it backfired.

However, I would argue that a stealth tax of some kind should be installed in these kinda places to cover emergency services. Fire, Ambulance and Police services are essentials to any society and should not be an optional extra.

King Ludvig

If someone had been inside, say a squatter for example, and had been killed, I wonder would any criminal responsibility possibly fall on members of the fire service for this omission?

Would they be considered to have failed in their contractual obligations? A duty of care towards the public despite the fact the homeowner did not pay the fire service charge? Alternatively could it be arguged that by attending the scene they taken on a responsibility and were therefore under a duty to act to prevent harm? Food for thought!

Manic Moran

King Ludvig wrote: »

If someone had been inside, say a squatter for example, and had been killed, I wonder would any criminal responsibility possibly fall on members of the fire service for this omission?

Not if they had reason to believe nobody was in there.

"Sir, is this your house?"
"Yes"
"Are all your family and guests accounted for?"
"Yes"
"Grand, so. Get the marshmallows out"

For criminal liability to attach, there must be gross negligence. The US tends to be a little more 'common-sensical' when it comes to that sort of liability.

Would they be considered to have failed in their contractual obligations? A duty of care towards the public despite the fact the homeowner did not pay the fire service charge?

Their 'contractual obligations' were to the residents of the city of whose fire service they belonged. Not people who live outside the city. Obviously no contract was entered into, the owners had chosen not to enter into it.

Alternatively could it be arguged that by attending the scene they taken on a responsibility and were therefore under a duty to act to prevent harm? Food for thought!

What harm was coming? As far as they knew, everyone was out.

NTM

Zambia

The Cranicks, residents of a rural area in Tennessee, made numerous calls to the fire department, expressing fear that burning trash near their home was growing out of control.


What the bets the Cranicks where burning Trash? Not the brightest thing to do when your stiffing the fire service

King Ludvig

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not if they had reason to believe nobody was in there.

"Sir, is this your house?"
"Yes"
"Are all your family and guests accounted for?"
"Yes"
"Grand, so. Get the marshmallows out"

For criminal liability to attach, there must be gross negligence. The US tends to be a little more 'common-sensical' when it comes to that sort of liability.

Your still dealing with a large house fire, a dangerous situation, posing serious risk to the public. Just because the family is accounted for doesnt mean a neighbour (who may have paid his fees) couldn't have entered and gotten trapped inside.

IMO they would certainly be subject of moral condemnation if a death had occured. It's like the situation of walking by a lake, seeing a child drowning and doing nothing despite the fact you could easily save them.

The fire service are standing there at the scene with all the required equitment to end the dangerous situation and extinuish the risk yet they do nothing because of a $75 fee? Since when was risking human life worth $75? As was said by previous posters, they should have tackled the fire and later imposed some sort of a fine etc.

At the end of the day American states are the ones with the good samaritan laws (maybe not in Tennessee, but the principle remains).

As for common sense in American? I've seen much stranger things happen; like a "Philadelphia restaurant ordered to pay a women over 50k after she slipped on a spilled drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: the woman had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument" - some many other classic examples!

Manic Moran wrote: »

Their 'contractual obligations' were to the residents of the city of whose fire service they belonged. Not people who live outside the city. Obviously no contract was entered into, the owners had chosen not to enter into it.

I don't mean a contract specifically with the home owner but a contractual duty to the public in general. Does it really matter the they were the 'city' fire service and not the 'county' fire service? They were still at the scene. Maybe I'm thinking of the fire service too much as it exists over here rather than the privatised version that apperently exists in Tennessee.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What harm was coming? As far as they knew, everyone was out.

NTM

As above, there's no way they could know for sure. A fairly substaintial risk still existed. What about the possible harm to the neighbouring houses? What if a death occured next door after the rapid spread of the fire or a gas explosion ect. If it was a member of my family I'd certainly hold the fire service responsible.

sdanseo

Emergency services should be FREE unless there was deliberate neglect responsible for causing the callout.

For example, if you're in bed and a plugged-in TV shorts and burns the house down, insurance should cover the cost of the Fire Brigade and if not it should be free.

If however you go to bed leaving a candle next to a bottle of petrol or leaving the cooker on, then you should have to pay.

In any event, the fire service in question in the USA, or the people who told them not to extinguish the fire, are a pile of worthless, inhuman gits.

MagicSean

sdonn wrote: »

Emergency services should be FREE unless there was deliberate neglect responsible for causing the callout.

For example, if you're in bed and a plugged-in TV shorts and burns the house down, insurance should cover the cost of the Fire Brigade and if not it should be free.

If however you go to bed leaving a candle next to a bottle of petrol or leaving the cooker on, then you should have to pay.

In any event, the fire service in question in the USA, or the people who told them not to extinguish the fire, are a pile of worthless, inhuman gits.

Firefighting is a dangerous job. Would you do it for someone who expects you to risk your life in return for nothing?

Manic Moran

Would you do it for someone who expects you to risk your life in return for nothing?

Not only that, who's going to pay for the fire truck? One has to pay for the service somehow, be it taxes, communal dues, whatever.

Just because the family is accounted for doesnt mean a neighbour (who may have paid his fees) couldn't have entered and gotten trapped inside.

Simple enough.

"And you, Sir, are you the individual who has paid up and has called us?"
"Yes"
"And all you and yours are accounted for?"
"Yes"
"Right, grand so. Just stay away from the fire, we'll do what we can to make sure your house is safe"

Maybe I'm thinking of the fire service too much as it exists over here rather than the privatised version that apperently exists in Tennessee.

I don't think it's privatised. It's just that it belonged to a different entity. It is quite common for emergency services to be outsourced, for example a lot of small towns in the US will contract policing duties to the county sheriff so that they don't have to have a police force of their own.

What about the possible harm to the neighbouring houses?

That's why they were there to begin with. Neighbouring house needed protection from the fire.

NTM

Run_to_da_hills

k_mac wrote: »

Firefighting is a dangerous job. Would you do it for someone who expects you to risk your life in return for nothing?

I totally agree but that is what TAXES are for.

The fire service should be provided by the state and never put into private hands.

King Ludvig

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's why they were there to begin with. Neighbouring house needed protection from the fire.

NTM

I think you missed my point, we all know how fast fires spread, they pose a danger. Anyway, IMO the actions (or lack thereof) of the fire service was a disgrace. I only hope things never get that bad over here.

civdef

Situations like this result from the community choosing not to vote for taxes for services like firefighting. The result is a lower tax rate, but then services like fire departments need to be self-financing - in this case via annual subscription from people who want to avail of the service, essentially very much like the insurance brigades we had this side of the pond in times past.

It might seem strange to us, but it's evidently the way people in that community want to have it.

Edit: It looks like the home in question was a mobile home, it's more than likely that is was destroyed before the fire department arrived on scene. Even if water was sprayed on it, the result would look much the same.

sdanseo

k_mac wrote: »

Firefighting is a dangerous job. Would you do it for someone who expects you to risk your life in return for nothing?

No, but firefighters don't get paid any more or less depending on how much the end user pays for the service. They're paid a flat salary by the local authority linked to the civil service pay scales.

Gardaí and Paramedics don't generally charge for callouts, and arguable a Garda's job is as dangerous at times. More Gardaí have been killed, I'd argue, than firemen in the line of their duties but they don't send a bill for catching the burglar who broke into your home - even if you invited the break-in by leaving a window wide open.

the_syco

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I totally agree but that is what TAXES are for.

The fire service should be provided by the state and never put into private hands.

The $75 was a voluntary tax. The people didn't pay it.

Run_to_da_hills

the_syco wrote: »

The $75 was a voluntary tax. The people didn't pay it.

If car insurance was voluntary people would also avoid paying for it. One reason why such an important service should be funded by community taxes. If people don't pay taxes they normally end up in jail.

Finnbar01

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Also not a good idea, this only encourages DIY firemen especially with chimney fires.

Come again?

Run_to_da_hills

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Come again?

Speaking about "call out charges", this only encourage people to try extinguish fires themselves before they call the service.

Finnbar01

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Speaking about "call out charges", this only encourage people to try extinguish fires themselves before they call the service.

I wasn't speaking about a call out charge as such. If you didn't pay your subscription, than you would have to pay a larger fee if you do have to call out the fire brigade. Also paying a biiger fee would encourage others to pay their subscriptions.

Trying to put out the fire yourself is ludricous but yeah some people are so stupid they would probably try it.

MagicSean

sdonn wrote: »

No, but firefighters don't get paid any more or less depending on how much the end user pays for the service. They're paid a flat salary by the local authority linked to the civil service pay scales.

Gardaí and Paramedics don't generally charge for callouts, and arguable a Garda's job is as dangerous at times. More Gardaí have been killed, I'd argue, than firemen in the line of their duties but they don't send a bill for catching the burglar who broke into your home - even if you invited the break-in by leaving a window wide open.

I think you are missing the point. In Ireland taxes all go in one big pot and all expenses are taken out of that, including emergency services. In other places they use a different system where services are provided on the basis of seperate taxes. If you don't pay the tax you don't get the benefit of the service.

For example. When you pay your road tax your money does no go directly to the maintenance of roads. It is put into the governments income books. They then grant a budget to the local authority who spends money on fixing the roads. as such there is no direct link betwwen your tax and road maintenance.

sdanseo

k_mac wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. In Ireland taxes all go in one big pot and all expenses are taken out of that, including emergency services. In other places they use a different system where services are provided on the basis of seperate taxes. If you don't pay the tax you don't get the benefit of the service.

For example. When you pay your road tax your money does no go directly to the maintenance of roads. It is put into the governments income books. They then grant a budget to the local authority who spends money on fixing the roads. as such there is no direct link betwwen your tax and road maintenance.

Not missing the point at all, I'm well aware of the double taxation in place whereby the state, and THEN the local authority, can charge for a basic, and at times life+property-saving service.