Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

How do you feel about this?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ How do you feel about this?
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:14 AM
Well that's a legal question and I'm no lawyer but I would guess there certainly is a possibility that the neighbor whose house was burned down could be liable for damages to the neighbor who paid the $75.
Oct 5, 2010 10:14am
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:15 AM
Why doesn't this county/township/whatever have a volunteer fire department?

Where we live in SE Michigan, we have a volunteer fire department and the only police force is the County Sheriff Department. I just think they should have something like this in place.

I wonder if this would be different if it was the police department and something pertaining to them.
Oct 5, 2010 10:15am
Fab1b's avatar

Fab1b

The Bald A-Hole!!

12,949 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:19 AM
bigkahuna;507823 wrote:Why doesn't this county/township/whatever have a volunteer fire department?

Where we live in SE Michigan, we have a volunteer fire department and the only police force is the County Sheriff Department. I just think they should have something like this in place.

I wonder if this would be different if it was the police department and something pertaining to them.

Well where would the funding for a volunteer department's building and equipment come from if they can't afford the city service and residents have to pay a fee already for that?
Oct 5, 2010 10:19am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:22 AM
Con_Alma;507821 wrote:Well that's a legal question and I'm no lawyer but I would guess there certainly is a possibility that the neighbor whose house was burned down could be liable for damages to the neighbor who paid the $75.

Indeed, it is a possibility, but if the guy couldn't be bothered to pay $75, how likely is it that he could pay for any damages!?

Again, we don't know all of the facts, but it just seems crazy to me that a fire department won't put out a fire.
Oct 5, 2010 10:22am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:23 AM
Fab4Runner;507818 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. I just can't say that I could stand there and watch someones house burn down over $75.

Agree! I just can't say that I can understand someone being blatantly negligent getting bailed out.
bigkahuna;507823 wrote:Why doesn't this county/township/whatever have a volunteer fire department?

Where we live in SE Michigan, we have a volunteer fire department and the only police force is the County Sheriff Department. I just think they should have something like this in place.

I wonder if this would be different if it was the police department and something pertaining to them.
It would be different because PD's deal w/ criminal activity.
Oct 5, 2010 10:23am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:24 AM
I've lived in big cities, small towns, and in rural areas, and have never heard of the concept of fire protection being optional. Is this common?
Oct 5, 2010 10:24am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:25 AM
"I wonder if this would be different if it was the police department and something pertaining to them. "

Excellent point. If an American police officer witnesses an illegal immigrant robbing another illegal immigrant, would we be ok with the cop not getting involved because, eff them....they aren't Americans and don't pay taxes, so why should I get involved?

I suppose the officer should get involved because the offending illegal immigrant could pose a danger to legal Americans, but likewise wouldn't the fire that is damaging a delinquent person pose a danger to a non-delinquent person?
Oct 5, 2010 10:25am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:26 AM
"It would be different because PD's deal w/ criminal activity."

Indeed, and fire departments deal with fire activities.
Oct 5, 2010 10:26am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:28 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507831 wrote:Indeed, it is a possibility, but if the guy couldn't be bothered to pay $75, how likely is it that he could pay for any damages!?

...
Again, understanding that I'm not an attorney, I have never heard of the ability to pay being a factor regarding the determination of liability.

In the hypothetical you have described, were it me and my house that was damaged because a neighbor didn't have fire prevention services available, I would go to my homeowners insurance and expect the repairs to be covered and then expect that they would go after my neighbor from a legal perspective.
Oct 5, 2010 10:28am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:39 AM
Oh, I'd go after the neighor! It just might not yield much.

But in the hypothetical I/you paid for fire protection, yet the inaction of the department failed to protect. Wouldn't they be a potential liable entity?
Oct 5, 2010 10:39am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:39 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507835 wrote:"I wonder if this would be different if it was the police department and something pertaining to them. "

Excellent point. If an American police officer witnesses an illegal immigrant robbing another illegal immigrant, would we be ok with the cop not getting involved because, eff them....they aren't Americans and don't pay taxes, so why should I get involved?

I suppose the officer should get involved because the offending illegal immigrant could pose a danger to legal Americans, but likewise wouldn't the fire that is damaging a delinquent person pose a danger to a non-delinquent person?

How would he know they were both illegal immigrants? Anyway, not even close to the same thing. There was no physical harm done to the homeowner. He didn't feel his house was worth $75, so now it's gone.
Oct 5, 2010 10:39am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:44 AM
"How would he know they were both illegal immigrants?"

It is a hypothetical, I guess the same way the FD knew this guy was delinquent. Past experience and other information.
Oct 5, 2010 10:44am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:49 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507847 wrote:Oh, I'd go after the neighor! It just might not yield much.

But in the hypothetical I/you paid for fire protection, yet the inaction of the department failed to protect. Wouldn't they be a potential liable entity?

I don't know but would they not have the option of protecting the "paid" house by taking protective actions that are available such as positioning water barriers between the burning house and their "client"?
Oct 5, 2010 10:49am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:50 AM
I also don't think that we truly pay for "fire protection" from a fire department as much as we pay to fund a department that fights fires or tries to put them out.

I am not sure a fire department can truly be responsible for preventing fires. They seem to be more reactive in responsibility.
Oct 5, 2010 10:50am
J

JTizzle

Senior Member

366 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:52 AM
This is not the first time it has happened either there was another story a while back about the same sort of thing. I think it is sad to let someone's home burn to the ground because of an unpaid $75 dollars. I know I will make sure to vote for all police and fire levies.
Oct 5, 2010 10:52am
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:53 AM
System of failure;

I can see this going in many different directions.
If this is set as a standard to pay $75.00 for fire what next $100.00 for police, $150.00 for EMS and then comes the pissing contest of who paid what and what area is covered. When the cross over of public safety service from city to township to township to country lines this creates a problem. This is no a new issue but the same old same old … The citizen keep getting billed and the taxes does cover what it once did…
Another would be that this is a legal problem because the fire fighter have a responsibility to all citizen and the political process has no responsibility but to only the area that they are elected officials.
It idea of paying $75.00 for fire service is unjustified …does a apartment own have to pay $75.00 for the same service or does he pay $75.00 per unit? Do those in public housing have to pay or does the public house exempted? This situation present to many options so I would have to say I would be filing a law suit ASAP.. Seem like a half baked demand to make a profit without consideration for the safety of the citizens..
Oct 5, 2010 10:53am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:55 AM
Con_Alma;507860 wrote:I don't know but would they not have the option of protecting the "paid" house by taking protective actions that are available such as positioning water barriers between the burning house and their "client"?

I suppose they could, but they could take the easier and cheaper route of responding when there is a threat.
Oct 5, 2010 10:55am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:55 AM
In my community you can do exactly that Belly. You can choose to pay annually $150.00 for EMS services. If you choose not to you pay the true cost of services provided when/if you are need.
Oct 5, 2010 10:55am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:57 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507847 wrote:Oh, I'd go after the neighor! It just might not yield much.

But in the hypothetical I/you paid for fire protection, yet the inaction of the department failed to protect. Wouldn't they be a potential liable entity?
A FD is reactive, not proactive. Their duty is to react to a fire situation on the property of a paid owner in this situation. Of course volunteer dept's will react to any fire. FD's don't protect from or prevent fires(other than putting out info, doing alarm checks, and stuff of that nature), if that were the case, they would be on patrol just like the PD.
Oct 5, 2010 10:57am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:58 AM
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. We don't need nothin but the weed and a lighter.
Oct 5, 2010 10:58am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:59 AM
"Their duty is to react to a fire situation on the property of a paid owner in this situation"

So if my neighbor is delinquent in his property taxes, the city FD won't put out a fire in his house until it spreads on to my property?

I'm not arguing that is your position. It is just a question.
Oct 5, 2010 10:59am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:01 AM
That's not the same scenario as I see it.

The original scenario gave property owners the choice. Did it not?

Prior city services funding tended to be based on city ordinances or legislated.
Oct 5, 2010 11:01am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:01 AM
Con_Alma;507870 wrote:In my community you can do exactly that Belly. You can choose to pay annually $150.00 for EMS services. If you choose not to you pay the true cost of services provided when/if you are need.
That sounds like it would have been the best solution in this situation. Don't pay the $75 annual fee, fine....but you owe us for the time and man hours dealing with the fire. Seems a lot more reasonable than what may have transpired, again without knowing all of the facts!
Oct 5, 2010 11:01am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:02 AM
I would tend to agree with that Manhattan but again you would be in a situation whereby the ability to collect would come into play.

I guess you could put a lien on the property.
Oct 5, 2010 11:02am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:09 AM
I'm torn on the issue as well.

Not with the department, but the idea as a whole.

If this was already known in the area, then in this case the home owners are 100% at fault and are to blame.

However, the policy in general by the city leaders kind of rubs me the wrong way, but I don't know what else would work.
Oct 5, 2010 11:09am