Fire Chief

Fire departments were responding to a large fire in an old apartment complex in the town of Stepford. June Palmer had cautiously passed the fire scene on her way home. After passing the scene, she accelerated; her car struck something and her airbags deployed. Palmer’s car had hit a fire truck, seriously injuring a firefighter.

The fire truck was parked down the road while drafting water for a shuttle relay. It partially extended onto the road, but had no traffic cones and or flares surrounding it.

This scenario was the basis for a mock trial last week at the 22nd Annual Fire Department Safety Officers Association’s Apparatus Symposium in Orlando. Real-life attorneys Jim Juneau and Philip C. Stittleburg, and New York State Supreme Court Judge Robert McGann showed how the trial would proceed in an actual courtroom. Symposium attendees played the roles of the injured firefighter, Stepford’s safety officer and chief, Palmer, and the engineer from the apparatus manufacturer.

“If the jury determines that it was foreseeable, you should have foreseen the outcome,” McGann said. “You are going to be responsible.”

While the injured firefighter had settled with the Palmer’s insurance company, the manufacturer was being sued for not delivering Stepford’s new fire truck with NFPA 1901–required striping and emergency safety cones and flares.

“NFPA 1901 allows a fire truck to be delivered as long as the truck is not used until the required equipment and other required work is completed before it is put in to service,” McGann explained.

During the mock trial, witnesses testified that the apparatus manufacturer delivered the new fire truck to the fire department; however, the department opted to do the stripping and outfit the equipment through their own suppliers. The manufacturer had the fire chief sign a statement of exception, agreeing that the fire department would install the NFPA 1901–required equipment and striping on the truck before it was placed into emergency service.

Since the fire chief signed the statement of exception, the city of Stepford was obligated to complete the required stripping and installation of safety equipment on the truck. “The absence of the safety cones and safety flares left the truck vulnerable to the accident,” McGann said.

Witnesses also testified that budget restrictions prevented the chief from authorizing the required stripping and equipment, yet city council members pressed to get the new fire truck in service. With a large building fire, the chief reasoned that using the truck to draft water for a tanker shuttle away from the fire scene didn’t constitute participating in “emergency service.”

The safety officer’s notes from a safety committee meeting were introduced into evidence. The manufacturer insisted that the statement of exception was signed by the chief. The chief denied and then remembered being present at the safety meeting and discussing the required equipment.

The safety officer voluntarily produced his notes during the discover phase. “Never write anything that you wouldn’t anticipate is going to be part of the litigation process,” McGann said. “If there is a shred of paper, a conversation, a recording, an e-mail, Jim Juneau is going to have a case.”

Trials aren’t just about the evidence. They also are about impressions. An audience member asked whether a Class A uniform should be worn into the courtroom. “It depends on the people’s perception of government,” McGann answered. “I always like to have officers in uniform in court. In the last couple of years, however, we have seen an erosion of confidence in government, so it would depend on how government is being regarding in that locale; if people have lost confidence in government, then no Class A.”

Juneau, too, prefers a uniform “with lots of gold” if the chief is a good witness with a humble persona. However, if the personality of the officer appears pompous, Juneau recommends toning it down with a uniform shirt and badge.

“The trial is the search for the truth,” said Judge McGann. “When you walk in a courtroom, you don’t want to be the smartest person in the group, do you? You don’t want to be the person that the jury can’t relate to.”