Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee

It's not like the firefighters simply refused to stop the fire. It's that they couldn't stop the fire. If they had given their services away for free, everyone in the county would suddenly stop paying the yearly fee because they'd realize it was pointless, and then the fire station wouldn't be able to afford sending anyone there ever. Economically speaking, saving the house would have destroyed hundreds of houses in the future.

And it's not like they can just sue the homeowners afterwards. What would they sue them for? There's no cause of action. There was no breach of contract, no violation of rights, nothing. The firefighters would have been voluntarily helping them and therefore owed nothing, legally speaking. Do you really think the owners are going to pay them $2000 out of the kindness of their hearts? Even if they did, do you really think the firefighters can rely on that for every single case? These are people who risk their lives for their job after all. Stopping a fire isn't easy of safe.

As for the payment on the spot, it seems reasonable that a legally binding contract could be negotiated at the time even if they don't have a checkbook or the cash. The article makes it unclear whether that was even offered though. I'll withhold judgment for lack of information. It does seem like that would have been the best solution though. Contracts don't all have to be super-formal. Even an oral promise can be enough. Although they might be able to weasel their way out of it by claiming something like duress.

Somehow I doubt a jury would be sympathetic to people trying to back out of such a promise though.

edited 7th Dec '11 10:01:07 PM by Clarste

It still completely boggles my mind that the fire department is county by county and not paid for through state taxes.

For the same reason there isn't a "state police" in charge of every city police force, and paid via state taxes...

Clearly the model of efficacy.

This "Local, County, State, Federal" thing is just a giant headache.

Well duh.

California has a really elaborate and efficient disaster system in place believe it or not. A huge emergency program and network that incorporates everything from the most podunk sheriffs department to Cal Fire(Statewide firefighters) to the National Guard, based on what the disaster is.

When I fought the fires up in Nor Cal, we had everything from Guardsmen like myself to fire departments from hundreds of miles away pitching in, and all the expenses came out of the state budget.

Earthquakes, storms, landslides, wild fires, celebrities.

I would hope your state had a good emergency system!

edited 7th Dec '11 11:43:03 PM by Thorn14

...

really?

I'm struggling to come up with the proper words to respond to the response.

Not having read many of the details, which I'm sure will be cited by other people, I still find this absolutely disgusting.

A house is an incredibly large investment. Easily 100k or more. I assume this due to the term house rather than apartment.

Even if the damage due to smoke or fire made the house a write-off, there's still the belongings of the people inside, easily anywhere between $1000 to $10,000 as a conservative estimate. A lifetime of stuff that these people would take out of their now written-off investment.

So, because the fire-fighters could not comprehend of the possibility that this family would pay, this family/person/whatever lost everything that they didn't take out of the house.

That includes wallets or cellphones or any fucking thing that they had less than 2 minutes, given the estimates given in college dorm fire drills, to grab and get out.

This should not have happened. The firefighters should have billed the family after fighting the fire.

These fighters had the option to fight the fire, but instead they told the family to pay or they won't fight the fire, correct?

That's called coercion.

It does not matter that they were from out of town and they might not have been paid.

So I'm completely failing to see how the family, failing in its long-term responsibility to pay the fee, IE within the previous year, is responsible for a fire-fighting team failing in its extremely short-term responsibility by letting everything this family owns burn, leaving them with nothing, over $2100 that they could've billed the family over later.

EDIT: Edited for new information I missed.

edited 8th Dec '11 12:05:18 AM by Enkufka

No, they offered a bill I believe (it's just 2k instead of a simple $75 fee).

It stopped being $75 the moment the fire department showed up. It became $2100 at that point...

Sure, they could give the person a bill... And the hospital could give an uninsured patient a bill too... Doesn't mean they're getting any money.

The fire department ensured the fire didn't spread, and that no one died. That's all they were required to do. A cautionary tale has to happen to someone before you listen to the lesson... And the lesson is: Pay your fee for fire coverage, or this could happen to you.

edited 8th Dec '11 12:00:13 AM by Swish

Ok, a bit of missed information on my part.

That doesn't mean that they should've let the house burn. Uninsured are still billed for their operations.

But they're only treated if it's life threatening, ne?

I have no clue. I got treated for an ear infection last year, and I was treated before payment was discussed, and I imagine that I would have to pay more if it were not for my mother's insurance.

So no, I think it more likely they'll still treat you for non-life-threatening conditions that might still cause pain, discomfort, something which hinders the ability to work, etc etc etc.

edited 8th Dec '11 12:10:19 AM by Enkufka

You had your mothers insurance, ergo you were insured.. They were the equivalent of the uninsured.

I find american way of gaving insurances and feees liek this as "Pay us now incase shit happens, otherwise we won't help" stupid. Insurances should be for momentary compensation, say your house burns. In thsi case, insurance company comes and looks around and pays you based on how much you have payed to them and how much damage was caused.

Medical service, schooling, police deparment and fire department should all be free to person, no extra fees. Even in my fomer hometown, which was too poor to have it's own, there was state funded volunteer service. These people went to work and lived normally, had drills periodically and when the fire broke out, they left the work(employers knew this and accepted it) and went to put out the fire.

Yet we never paid extra money for their service. Sure, they got paid and they got budget to keep, but it all came from taxes. I wouldn't hold it against if they went to help someone outside the town even if those people wouldn't pay directly to us.

So, it seems it is still the 18th century in the US. Shame.

It does rather beg the question; what the hell do the local authority spend their tax money on, if not provision of services? What's this 'you live in the countryside, so no fire engine for you unless you stump up!' malarkey?

edited 8th Dec '11 1:50:45 AM by InverurieJones

Notice how it all came from taxes? Well, this group decided not to have taxes. I don't see how what you said counteracts "pay us now incase shit happens, otherwise we won't help" since that's not insurance (insurance was just something compared).

How can you 'decide' not to have taxes? They must pay taxes to somebody.

@Barkey: The point was not I was insured, but that the question of insurance did not even enter into the matter until the end when I was asked to either pay for the examination and subsequent antibiotics or give them my insurance information.

Treatment -> Payment.

To take a different analogy which has been used alot, the EM Ts don't charge you upon coming to you, they bill you after you've been treated.

The county did, which is presumably answerable to the people. Since the county doesn't include the city, but is simply nearby, they would either A) collect a tax and 1) pay for their own fire department 2) pay the city for use of their fire department or B) make it a fee everyone pays to do either 1 or 2. The county chose B2.

I've noticed that people against the fire department here are coloring the men in uniform as some mafia organization that goes to these poor folks' homes in black suits, delivering bouquets of flowers and sarcastically saying "it'd be a shame if an accident were to happen."

The fire department has no obligation to assist people out of their district that aren't going to pay them. They're not fucking Superman. They don't need to fly away to every single fire and make everything perfect. They're human beings that have a responsibility to protect their city. If you live outside of that city and aren't paying the city taxes, then why should the fire department have to help you out? You decided to live cheap, and they offered you a plan where you could pay a mere $75 to have protection for a year, and despite being fully aware of this plan, you opted out, thinking fires would never happen to you.

How is this at all the fire department's fault? This is like blaming the Austin Fire Department for not assisting a fire in Chicago— No, scratch that. This is like blaming the Austin Fire Department for going to a fire in Chicago, but not having enough money to pay for the water they're about to use. Do you see how ridiculous it is to treat these firefighters like monsters?

I'll say it again. The men in uniform here aren't mafia mobsters trying to force you into paying their outrageous fees, nor are they Supermen with the responsibility of protecting every single person who, this time, became Chaotic Neutral and just sat around, watching the house burn. They went to the fire, noticed this person doesn't value their lives and/or property enough to pay a fee, made sure no body was dying, and told them, "Sorry, we can't afford to come all the way here and risk our lives for someone who doesn't think our job is important enough."

I think what people are upset about is that this system exists in the first place, and the agents of that system naturally get some of the flak.

Hospitals make you sign contracts before you do anything, unless you're unconscious in which case they have their own policies.

The problem is that there is no such policy in place for the fire department and the homeowners have no contract. They could send a bill but if they can't enforce that bill in court then it means nothing. You can't just send people bills and have them obligated to pay. Otherwise you'd have people billing everyone randomly for everything.

edited 8th Dec '11 4:38:24 AM by Clarste

A family was plunged into abject poverty for less than a Benjamin. That's intolerable.

Because they refused to pay for their own safety. And it's unclear, but it seems they refused to pay the emergency 2k fee too. And I would assume that in that case all they expect is a signed agreement to pay afterwards, rather than getting a checkbook out of a burning house.

edited 8th Dec '11 5:00:40 AM by Clarste