Just curious. Say a business catches on fire and a fireman is injured in the process of putting it out and is unable to go back to work. It is later determined that the fire started because of improper storage of chemicals by the business owner.
Can the injured fireman sue the business owner?
More likely the fireman’s injuries would be covered by worker’s compensation and employer-provided disability coverage. All employees are covered by WC, and it would be almost impossible to hire firefighters without offering disability coverage.
I have often heard it said “anyone can sue for anything, although they may not win.” Lawyer Dopers please feel free to clarify. I suppose if the business were negligent and the firefighter were not “made whole” by the insurance coverage, there’s nothing stopping him from bringing a lawsuit.
A lawsuit can be filed for pretty much anything that someone can dream up, whether it will ever see a courtroom, or be successful if it does is another thing.
As an aside, there was a lawsuit a few years back in which a woman sued her husband for not clearing their walk of ice and snow. She slipped and fell, injuring herself. I believe it was in the Boston area, it was well covered in the media. The dodge was that they were trying to get money from their homeowner’s insurance. I don’t recall ever hearing the outcome.
While not a lawyer, IAA firefighter. Our department and the township covers all members with workmen’s comp and AD&D insurance. Were a member to suffer a catastrophic injury requiring long-term care, and the fire cause was proven to be incendiary, then I could see the building owner being on the hook.
Hopefully Bricker or another resident legal mind will shed light.
My understanding (via a brother- and sister-in-law who are firefighters) is that an injured firefighter is treated by the department - both by doctors that work solely for the department (typically just in big cities) or by workers’ comp.
Workers’ comp (at least in California) is no-fault. You get hurt on the job, they fix you up and that’s that. Except in cases of extreme or criminal negligence by the employer, an injured employee can’t sue. Not “They can expect their attempt to sue to go nowhere” but they have no right to sue as agreeing to be treated by workers’ comp subjugates any rights to sue those responsible for their injury.
Injured workers are generally free to be treated by any means they desire, but it would be cash out of pocket. If they have health insurance, the minute the insurance company finds out they were injured at work, the person will be tossed back into the workers’ comp system.
I italicized “employer” above to point out that in the case of an injured fire fighter, it’s the owner of the business or building that may be negligent, not the fire fighter’s employer, eg: the fire department. In this scenario, it is entirely possible that the fire department may sue the business owner, and they may even face civil or criminal charges for unlawful conditions.
There was an interested thread on Firefighters and the Law several months back.
Much of the material discussed was tangential to your question, but they did discuss your question and several court cases were cited. Please take a look and enjoy.
Another firefighter checking in.
Although I’ve never suffered a significant workplace injury, I do work with folks who have. This is how things worked out for them.
Many states (including my own) have laws called the “firemen’s relief act” or something close to it. It generally states that if you suffer a line of duty injury (LODI), the municipality you work for must continue to pay you your normal wages for a specified period of time (for us it’s 2 or 3 years), at which time you must return to work, or you have to retire on disability at 66-2/3% of your current salary, tax exempt. If the LODI was career ending, you can retire at 66-2/3% right away. There are some issues with doctors agreeing on what is debilitating and whatnot, but thats the jist of it.
As for being able to sue for injuries sustained at an incident, no, we can’t sue. Another legal concept called the “firemen’s rule.” Our job is considered dangerous (ultrahazardous and unavoidably dangerous if you read the label on our turnout gear), and we knew it when we signed up, so suck it up. Its been a bone of contention in the fire service for a number of years now, since the construction industry has taken to building “disposable” buildings (lightweight wood trusses, LVLs, and those foam core panels This Old House loves to use) that fall down on us just as we’re going inside.
Here in Massachusetts, as far as I remember, charges were brought against the owner of the Worcester Cold Storage warehouse after they lost six firefighters there in 1999, but the charges were along the lines of not keeping his building secure, nothing to do with the fire or the firefighter deaths.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/mo/firefighters_rule/hockensmith_v_brown.htm (partial victory)
It has to do with the firefighter’s rule, which bars recovery by firefighters injured by negligence in the line of duty. Courts said that firefighter’s assumed the risk of injury when they became public safety officers. The rule has been modified or rejected in many jurisdictions.
I’ll hazard a guess that if the fireman got caught in a booby-trap (as has been discussed a lot lately), it would be a different matter.
IF anyone including emergency service personell is injured or killed by a booby trap it goes into attempted murder or murder. Civil liability will come after they decide how long you’re going to prison.
NPR did a piece some years back about firefighters who were trying to get information about chemicals they were exposed to in the workplace. IIRC, the firefighters were specifically stating that they weren’t interested in suing because of the exposure, but only making sure that they’d get proper treatment for any exposure, and would be aware of any potential future health hazards.