February 25, 2011
***************************************
**************
Question
*************
Ken
re: Widow of Calif. Firefighter to Get $4.6 Million
She blamed two security companies for mishandling the initial report of the '07 blaze killing two firefighters.
Why would the Sub-Contractor be Liable? It seems the blame would be with the Monitoring Station.
Why would the widow of the firefighter be compensated. If anything it seems the family of the residents should be
compensated.
Thank you,
ABF Security Systems
Bill Caravassilis
*****************
Question and comment
*****************
Hi Ken;
Don't you find it odd, that there was no finding of culpability on the part of the fire dispatcher for Contra Costa County? I think the findings in the case were flawed. The central monitoring stations only have one number for a fire dispatch center, and you can't call 9-1-1 from another county or state. They don't have multiple listings to report a fire alarm as opposed to known fire. It's not up to the dispatcher to necessarily ascertain if there was in fact a fire. If she called the dispatch center in a timely fashion, I believe that should absolve her of any culpability. I know how emergency dispatch centers operate, and unless you are screaming into the telephone reporting an emergency, when they are busy, you will be put on hold. Any fire dispatcher who treats a fire alarm as a non-emergency or something other than a life threatening emergency, should be looking for another line of work. Their dispatch system protocols are flawed. I also see the way fire alarm systems are manufactured as being flawed. If a company installs only two-wire smoke detectors, you only get one report to the central monitoring station from the fire alarm system. In a system that uses polling loop smoke detectors or wireless smoke detectors, the control panel will generate a signal to the central monitoring station for each zone activated. In an actual fire, it is not uncommon for a central station to receive alarms from every smoke detector that is assigned it's own zone. Much like in an actual burglary, the central station would likely report a burglary signal being received from a premise, and then state to the police dispatcher, that they are receiving subsequent signals from interior motion detectors/zones. It lets the dispatch agency know that there is at the very least, someone on premise. The same would apply for fire alarms. I have seen smoke detectors cause a false alarm many times, but I have never seen more than one smoke detector false at any given time. Going forward, I know the NFPA changes the codes to increase life safety, but maybe this is something that should be looked at. I can't remember the last time I installed smoke detectors in a structure that were only a two-wire system for this very reason.
John from NJ
***************
Answer
**************
First of all we really don't know much about this reported settlement. We don't know whether litigation was commenced, what stage the litigation had progressed to, what other facts may have influenced the alarm companies, and more likely, their insurance companies to settle.
It's bad precedent for sure and will only serve to encourage these types of lawsuits. Fire fighters, police personnel and EMS personnel get injured all the time responding to alarm conditions, including what is commonly characterized as false alarm conditions. Why should that expose alarm companies to liability? It shouldn't.
There use to be the police and fireman's rule. They could not recover against anyone if injured in the line of duty. I believe that rule has changed so that they can sue if they can show someone was negligent.
There are no facts that would suggest negligence on the part of the installer. It appears that there may have been central station error, causing a delay in fire department response. How the firemen were able to show that "but for" that "negligence" they would not have been injured, in this case, died, is a mystery, so far. It would be helpful to hear from the installer and the central station to hear their side and explanation as to why they settled. If the insurance carrier made that decision, let's find out who the carriers are and whey they settled.
***********
Comment
************
Hi Ken,
I felt compelled to write after seeing your reader’s comments on this tragic house fire. I personally knew Gayle Moore, who died in the fire with her husband and the two firemen. What has not been mentioned is that after Pinnacle spoke to her via 2-way, Gayle actually got out of the house & away from the fire. Safely outside, she called 911 on her cell phone. The fire department told her they were responding and asked her if everybody got out. She said no, her husband was still inside. The fire dispatcher told her, “Ok, get everybody out”. Gayle replied, “I’m trying…” and she was then seen by neighbors going back in the burning house - as she had been told.
There were numerous things that happened that night resulting in the deaths, and many changes were subsequently implemented by our fire district. I received the district’s complete report a year later, prior to the lawsuit. I’ve attached it for you to review.
This event, and the fire district's report also validates our position,
through SIAC, that cities requiring verified response on fire alarm
systems may be an accident waiting to happen. The delay reporting of an
actual fire can be fatal, and I hope I never see the day that we're
writing about another disastrous fire delayed by a verified response
policy.
It's baffling to me. The central station made two errors up front, but
that was followed by a long succession of errors by the fire department.
So many errors, that the investigative report had over 100
recommendations for change!
In retrospect, the message for all monitoring centers is (to protect
themselves for the future) they should verify that every one of their
phone numbers for jurisdictions are the correct ones to call, and, train
their operators to always relay exactly what is reported back during
premise verification calls. I don't recall hearing if a strong alarm
contract was in place, but the importance of having one goes without
saying.
The Moore's were senior citizens and Gayle was a smart lady. She was a
long time manager in the Port of Richmond with Manson Construction and
had been president of the Eagles lodge. This fire was in the middle of
the night, and I believe she was confused, scared, worried, and
attempted to do what she was told to do. If she had not been told to
"get everybody out" she would be alive today. I think her husband Del
just couldn't find his way through the smoke & collapsed... maybe he was
already unconscious. And then, two firemen committed to saving their
lives and losing their own. This was a very shocking event I hope
everyone learns a sobering lesson from.
Jon Sargent
From attached document- Gayle Moore’s call to 911:
1:45:52
CCRFCC
PHONE
Dispatcher 1
"Fire Emergency."
CHP
"Highway Patrol transferring from 1-4-9 Michele Drive for a house fire."
Dispatcher 1
"OK."
CHP
"Go ahead please."
Dispatcher 1
"Hello?"
Caller
"Hello?"
Dispatcher 1
"Hello, this is the Fire Department."
Caller
"I have a fire at 149 Michele Drive, San Pablo."
Dispatcher 1
"OK, your house on fire?"
Caller
"Yes it is."
Dispatcher 1
"Everybody get out?"
Caller
"No, I haven't got my husband out yet."
Dispatcher 1
"OK, we'll be right there. They're already on their way ma'am. We had a report of a fire alarm. But we're on our way. OK, get everybody out."
Caller
"I'm trying."
1:46:24
Dispatcher 1
"OK."