I was in a very difficult traffic situation last week and would appreciate observations on the situation in which I found myself.
I was driving on the A59 out of Liverpool on a stretch of road that was a two lane dual carriageway. Both lanes were solid with traffic and I was in the inside lane with all traffic doing about 10mph. A fire engine loomed behind with all warnings blaring. The problem was that the central reservation was a concrete construction at least a foot deep and on the nearside (my side) the 'pavement' was not much less deep. It was impossible for traffic to take totally evasive action from either lane and the miracle was that the fire engine managed to manoeuvre its way past all of the vehicles in the immediate vicinity of myself (fortunately including mine). My query is what would have been the situation had the fire engine taken the side out of, say, a couple of dozen cars, whilst responding to an emergency call.
There is a connection here with another thread currently running about 'car or driver'. It wasn't the fire engine that avoided contact with the vehicles in my vicinity but the skill of the driver of the fire engine. How he managed to negotiate a fire tender through the gap that he had defies belief, but would he have been held to be responsible had he not got it quite right and taken out a couple of hundred grands worth of machinery
|
If I may say so, your post is very relevant, sensible and balanced and highlights the difficult position both the emergency appliance driver finds him/herself in as well as the 'member of the public'. To be sure, if he (and we'll say 'he' for brevity's sake) were to take out the side of a couple of dozen cars he would be held accountable and responsible for his action and is not exempt from prosecution in such a circumstance. There is a virtually negligible chance of this deliberately happening in reality, in the circumstances you describe. There would be nothing to gain - and everything to lose. In extremis, and I'll offer a very hypothetical case here.... if a fire engine was approaching, say, a house fire, in which they had been told via the call slip or over the radio, that there were people ('persons' in fire brigade speak) hanging from upper windows...AND...if ,say, you could actually see half a dozen trapped individuals with their trousers on fire hanging by their fingertips...AND your path was obstructed by parked or waiting vehicles....AND...you thought that by scraping the paint and straightening out a few mirrors of a couple of cars, AND there were no other appliances visible at the scene......you could get to them and get to work..then you are quite likely to do it. For much less than that you might do a couple of grands worth of damage only to find it's a mickey.
If your car were to be damaged it would be a proper nuisance for you and everyone else but you would almost certainly find, in the circumstances you describe, that your claim would be fairly straightforward....AFAIK they still have a sort of 'blanket cover', a sort of 'self insurance' to cover these things....but I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong...it's been a few years.
I'm glad you were gracious enough to acknowledge the skillful driving you saw and have been honest enough to express your thoughts/doubts but would hope to assure you that fire brigade management doesn't just turn a blind eye to what happens to their (and your) property and would pursue the whole affair from all angles.
Last edited by: kb on Sun 24 Oct 10 at 00:06
|
|
Simple answer, if fire engine hit your car he would be negligent and Fire Brigade liable at law for damages in exactly the same way as any other road user would be.
|
It's surprising just how wide our apparently narrow roads are, when a dual darriageway comes to a standstill due to a road closing accident when the fire engine/ambulance/breakdown recovery come down the middle of the road they always manage to get through fine and surprisingly quickly when everyone gets over.
This obviously is helped if everyone doesn't jam themselves tightly behind the stationary vehicles in front and leaves themselves a bit of manoeuvering room for any possible emergency vehicles.
What never ceases to amaze me is just how poor some driver's observation is, no wonder they get nicked by unmarked plod following them, completely unaware of a fully blues lit and marked emergency vehicle with sirens and blasting the horn feet from their rear window, incredible.
|
An unlucky fire engine might hit one or two cars if it all went wrong, but if it scraped the sides of ten or twenty cars it would have been stolen by a joyrider.
Always fancied nicking a main battle tank myself. You could go anywhere in that irrespective of traffic jams. You'd hardly even notice them except for the screams of the dying.
|
I tend to find that the average car driver tends to over-estimate the width of his vehicle by at least 30%, more so if they're inexperienced or elderly.
Seeing a fire engine (or indeed a lorry) negotiating a narrow gap very close toyour car is always an intimidating experience for the car driver, as he's so much closer to the floor which often makes the situation look far worse than it is. My advice, if it happens to you, is to sit still; don't whatever you do, try to manoeuvre your car whilst he's inching past you. It often makes matters worse.
|
I think in an extreme situation they do whatever is necessary and the insurance or the authority argues it out afterwards.
I have heard of fire engines driving across people's front gardens because the road was choked with parked cars, also heard of them shunting or dragging parked cars out of the way.
They probably also have authority to destroy property in order to create a fire break - eg demolishing your house to stop an oil refinery going up.
|
|
There was recently a case where a lady died because of Fire Brigade H&S jobsworths refusing to rescue her although they had the kit but were not "trained" in its use. Don't believe the "whatever is necessary" scenario.
|
>> There was recently a case where a lady died because of Fire Brigade H&S jobsworths
>> refusing to rescue her although they had the kit but were not "trained" in its
>> use. Don't believe the "whatever is necessary" scenario.
>>
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-10837451
|
>> Always fancied nicking a main battle tank myself. You could go anywhere in that irrespective
>> of traffic jams. You'd hardly even notice them except for the screams of the dying.
>>
>> A few tips for from this guy, AC.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vESIVemfG8
Ted
|
Few years back, in my office a chap tried to toast a bread in microwave (!) and forgot.
Minutes later fire alarm sounded, 500+ people evacuated and 2 fire engines arrived.
|
|
Similar thing happened to me recently in a hotel at 3am, thanks to a hungry drunk.
|
When I worked in a supermarket attached to a huge shopping centre, someone burnt the toast in the staff canteen. When the alarm went off we had somethng like 30 seconds or so to silence it before it sounded to the centre security.
I got to it just 10 secs after it had sounded, silenced it but the fire brigade were called and centre security had a stand off with me as they evacuated the centre but I didn't evacuate the shop. I had been in the canteen, I knew what had set it off , this also corresponded with the sensor the panel had said had been set off.
But the centre jobsworths went absolutely bananas at me.
|
I was having a shower very early one morning in a hotel. Just as I got to the second round of shampoo the bathroom was invaded by firemen ( and a firewoman ). Seems the steam from my shower had triggered the smoke alarm in my bedroom as I'd inadvertantly left the bathroom door ajar. Evidently the whole hotel had been evacuated but as I'm fairly much deaf on one side and had the shower running I didn't hear a thing.
Quite put me off my bacon and egg. Don't suppose they enjoyed the sight of me much either mind.
Later I slunk out whistling tunelessly and nodding in empathy and faux innocence to those in reception who were grumbling and muttering about the idiot who had caused them to have been ousted to the car park in their jim-jams in freezing temperatures and horizontal sleet...
|
|
When I lived in a hall of residence in Manchester, burning toast would set off the smoke alarms. If this happened the fire brigade would have to come out. Occasionally there was either a fault or someone did it deliberate and you'd be up and out a few times in one night! Better safe than sorry though.
|
One of my mates from Uni, his old man was a serving fireman. He said they were allowed to shunt obstructions out of the way, inconsiderately parked cars was the example he gave. EDIT: and the fire brigade would have no financial responsibility to the car owner.
My mum (ex-police) said she wasn't allowed to shunt cars out of the way but when they needed they either a) did it anyway or b) used the bouncing the suspension trick to move a car sideways.
She probably didn't expect that later in life i'd teach all the students in halls of residence that trick... :-)
Last edited by: Skoda on Sun 24 Oct 10 at 19:53
|
......."He said they were allowed to shunt obstructions out of the way, inconsiderately parked cars was the example he gave. EDIT: and the fire brigade would have no financial responsibility to the car owner"........
Strange that for all those years no-one told me that. Yes, occasionally cars were bounced/manhandled over in order to get past on fire calls without causing damage, but I know full well we couldn't shunt cars out of the way safe in the knowledge there was no reponsibility to repair them afterwards. There's no shortage of paperwork to fill in if you do have even the slightest touch and never any shortage of onlookers (most with mobile cameras) ready to broadcast it to all and sundry (and these days, Youtube, I'd imagine). The OP will have to make his own mind up who's right and wrong.
|
>> Yes, occasionally cars were bounced/manhandled
>> over in order to get past on fire calls without causing damage, but I know
>> full well we couldn't shunt cars out of the way safe in the knowledge there
>> was no reponsibility to repair them afterwards.
Locally, our fire chaps just go for it. You parked on the pavement/yellow line/next to a hydrant/double parked? TOUGH!
The logic is that if the road is restricted width, and they have to get through to a fire/other emergency, then nudging your car out the way is fair game.
Been quite a hoo-haa about it in ther papers.
Also, when the traffic police arrive mob handed, issue loads of tickets, and tow away offending vehicles for the very reason - a fire engine couldn't get through - the partygoing nightlife types have a right old whinge.
|
>> I was having a shower very early one morning in a hotel. Just as I
>> got to the second round of shampoo the bathroom was invaded by firemen ( and
>> a firewoman ).
>>
>> Quite put me off my bacon and egg. Don't suppose they enjoyed the sight of me much either mind.
Put them off their sausages too I shouldn't wonder :-)
|
>>Just as I got to the second round of shampoo the bathroom
Second round Humph???? Why??? Do you wash your hands twice each time as well??
|
It's because I'm worth it...
:-)
|
Five rounds perhaps in total, unless you are bald then Humph?
Must take ages. Do you do artistic Mary Quant-style topiary as well?
All right, all right! I was just asking!
|
That's the sort of thing in a way Ted, but I was thinking more along the lines of a nose-to-tail static jam round Piccadilly Circus, with people in the cars.
The commentary ends: 'Thanks to the vigilance and bravery of the California Highway Patrol and the San Diego police, no citizen was harmed.'
But, er, hang on a minute: what about the mentally ill citizen driving the tank? Did they shoot him dead or just in a painful but non-lethal place? We weren't told. Not that I blame the fuzz for shooting the 'deranged bandit'. It did seem indicated. But he was a citizen too. And he was harmed.
|
>> Simple answer, if fire engine hit your car he would be negligent and Fire Brigade
>> liable at law for damages in exactly the same way as any other road user
>> would be.
Not necessarily. If the defendant's activity has "high social importance" they can take greater risks - Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954).
To be decided by the court, of course, but there is a definite argument that the driver of a fire engine, can take more risks, that would be considered reasonable, than an ordinary driver.
The fact that damage was caused, does not in itself, prove negligence. It is very significant whether the risk taken, was a reasonable one.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 25 Oct 10 at 13:49
|
Not sure of the relevance of Watt v Hertfordshire CC which concerned the a case where the fire brigade was held not negligent in getting the wrong vehicle to the scene of an accident because e time would have been lost in getting the best vehicle there to help.
As a road user an employee of the fire brigade has the same duty of care to other road users as does any other road user. Indeed since they are professional driver it could be argued that you could expect higher standards than from other drivers. In the circumstance outline in the OP they would be held negligent and liable for damages
|
>> Not sure of the relevance of Watt v Hertfordshire CC which concerned the a case
>> where the fire brigade was held not negligent in getting the wrong vehicle to the
>> scene of an accident because e time would have been lost in getting the best
>> vehicle there to help.
The relevance is that the case shows that, it describes that a defendant whose activity has "high social importance" can take greater risks. It lays down a general legal precedent, that can be applied in situations other than a direct like for like case.
>> As a road user an employee of the fire brigade has the same duty of
>> care to other road users as does any other road user. Indeed since they are
>> professional driver it could be argued that you could expect higher standards than from other
>> drivers.
It is wrong to assume that they have a higher duty of care than a normal road user. The issue is whether they breached the duty, and whether they have reasonable grounds to do so.
If you squeezed past the line of cars and damaged them, just to save time, then you are not as entitled to take the same level of risk as the driver of a fire engine that is racing to a fire. It could still, in theory, be reasonable, if you had taken reasonable precautions, but you would have a much, much harder time proving it.
It is about whether the risk you took is reasonable. It is, arguably, much more reasonable to damage some cars on the way to put out a fire, than to save some time.
>> In the circumstance outline in the OP they would be held negligent and liable
>> for damages
It is impossible to say, without the facts of the case, but a blanket assumption of guilt is completely wrong, as is assuming that you can compare a normal driver with the driver of a fire engine.
Negligence is much more complicated than that.
Just quick read of this article, would give you a much better insight into the details of what is relevant when trying to prove negligence:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 25 Oct 10 at 17:15
|
|
I see on the news that an ambulance driver has been arrested on suspicion of drink driving after a seven vehicle pile up while he was responding to a call. I suspect the only ones to profit from that one will be the lawyers.
|
The case in question concerns liability to an employee of the fire service. Using this case to change the duty of care owed by emergency service drivers to the world at large would be a huge leap and not one which has ever been taken by the courts as far as I am aware.
Emergency drivers have the same duty of care to other road users as any other driver. In the albeit brief scenario outline in the OP. I have no doubt the Fire service would be held liable for damages. In actual life of course they would not even defend the action and would settle out of court.
The fact that the driver was driving to an emergency would have no more bearing whatsoever on the incident than if an individual was driving to a perceived emergency. If you can quote an example where an emergency vehicle driver involved in an accident was held not liable purely because he was attending an emergency I would be most interested
|
CG, you really need to do a bit of reading up on negligence. Did you have a look at the article I sent you?
I think you have also misunderstood the use of legal precedent. It does not apply only to cases with the same, or even similar facts, it is equally applicable to similar issues (e.g. whether the nature of the activity you are carrying out, affects the amount of risk you are allowed to take).
You only breach a duty of care if you have not taken reasonable steps to avoid causing harm. What is reasonable depends upon the circumstances of the case.
It could be, for example, that it would be reasonable to risk causing damage to cars to save people from a burning building. It would be, as I said earlier, more difficult to show that the same risk was reasonable when trying to save time.
You say that you have no doubt that the fire service would be found negligent, but I do not believe that you have a firm grounding in the tort of negligence to come to that conclusion.
You want me to research cases for you, but you don't seem to have read the article I sent you, which should shed a lot of light on this.
|
But, if you do want a case that shows that in an emergency situation, it can be reasonable to take greater risks, you could have a look at - Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1957) - a case that resulted in serious injury, rather than just a few damaged doors.
tinyurl.com/3xou2dh
|
|
I'm only scanning the contributions here but is anyone suggesting that the driver of the fire engine can avoid the road traffic act (careless/dangerous driving) due to his activity?
|
>> My query
>> is what would have been the situation had the fire engine taken the side out
>> of, say, a couple of dozen cars, whilst responding to an emergency call.
Regardless of the situation, if my car sustains accident damage I claim on my insurance.
|
Drivers of emergency service vehicles have an near impossible job, as far as I can see. My brother is an EMT with the North West Ambulance Service and he frequently has all manner of problems with flamin' eejits.
Yesterday, I was at work driving into Preston in a double decker. I was heading up the dual carriageway part of London Road (tinyurl.com/33dpv7j ). A couple of fire engines were stomping down the hill towards me and my bus-driver's sixth sense kicked in, making me think (correctly, he says modestly) that they were going to turn across me into the road on my left (their right). So I signalled right and moved across to straddle both lanes to block the traffic so that the fire engines could turn unimpeded. This did not stop some numpty from trying to squeeze past me, two wheels on the central reservation. He got a long blast of Scania air-horn for his trouble...
amended url link as the full stop right at the end prevented it working
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 26 Oct 10 at 12:34
|
A taxi driver gestured abuse at me yesterday as I had dared to cross a roundabout at the same time that he wanted to use it. It didn't appear to matter that I had priority as I was to his right, or that I was driving a big yellow Mercedes with a big yellow box on the back - all festooned with blue flashing lights, whilst playing a lovely loud woo-woo tune. Sometimes, colliding with them does cross one's mind, just to teach them a lesson. Of course, I wouldn't do that.
|
Emergency Vehicle Priority - kb
