Fire Spread Theories: Thinking Outside the Origin Area

Transcription

Fire Spread Theories: Thinking
Outside the Origin Area
John Reis of Smith Moore Leatherwood
P: 704-384-2692,E: [email protected]
© 2015 Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The origins of fire and
mankind
Our Fascination with Fire
Harnessing Fire for Power
History of Fire – Three Stages
The History of Fire has evolved from
• the quest for fire
• to harnessing it for power
• to mastering our control over it.
Three Simple Questions
• Where and how did the fire start?
• Why and how did the fire grow?
• Why and how were the fire
extinguishment activities delayed or
impeded?
The Three Control Issues Made
Legalistic
• What acts or omissions allowed the fire, at its initial
origin, to become so intense that it spread beyond its
origin (e.g., hazardous materials, storage or
maintenance issues)?
• What acts or omissions impeded or delayed the
control of the spread by delayed reporting or issues
with internal systems (e.g., slow report to fire dept.,
problems with building systems)?
• What acts or omissions impeded or delayed the fire’s
extinguishment by active fire suppression systems
(e.g., problems with alarm, water supply issues)?
A Word About Fire Law
•
•
•
•
It isn’t easy.
But it’s worth it.
Like really great music.
You really have to dig a little deeper.
Pursuing a Fire Case
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is like putting on a rock show
You need energy.
You need intensity.
You need creativity.
You need skills.
You need showmanship.
And you have an evil twin
• The Defense Lawyer
Defending a Fire Case
•
•
•
•
It’s all about deflection.
The less thinking the better.
Use of simple refrains, repeated often.
It is very much like Rock’s Evil Twin
In the Pop World …
• In the Pop world, the defense
world, they will say, hey, we don’t
know what caused this fire, we
have no idea, and we win because
you can’t prove it either.
• We win because ….
Does it Matter If the Plaintiff Started the Fire?
• The pop answer is yes.
• The rock response is no.
What if the Origin is Unknown?
• If we cannot prove where or how the
fire originated, do we lose?
• Not in the Rock world.
Fire of Unknown Origin – Case in Point
• Orfanos v. Athenian, Inc., 505 A.2d 131 (Md. App. 1986)
• Landlord sues tenant for allowing cooking grease to accumulate on
its cooking units and failing to sufficiently clean the units or duct
area, contributing to the fire’s spread.
• Because plaintiff couldn’t prove how or where the fire started, trial
court dismissed case: “There was no evidence establishing
precisely where, or how, the fire started.”
• Appellate court reversed, allowing spread theory regardless of
unknown cause:
• “If there was an accumulation of grease in that system sufficient to
constitute an unreasonably hazardous condition and if that grease
caused a fire started elsewhere to spread and therefore cause
damage that would not otherwise have been caused, liability
would exist.”
Fuel/Material Issues
• Some products or materials, if in the origin
area, create an enhanced hazard and may give
rise to liability due to fire spread.
• Typically, these include building and decorating
products such as certain wall finishes,
insulating materials, carpeting, etc.
• Frequently, a fire of unknown origin will begin
in a structure and, for reasons not initially
apparent, will suddenly grow in intensity.
• The materials can be almost like …
Materials, 921
• 7.2.3 Materials. The nature of the materials selected and used in a building
design can have a substantial effect on the fire development and spread.
The nature of material is important from both its physical and chemical
properties. How easily the material ignites and burns, resists heating, resists
heat-related physical or chemical changes, conducts heat, and gives off toxic
by-products are important to an overall evaluation of the design of the
structure.
• 7.2.3.1 Ignitibility. How easily a specific material may be ignited, its
minimum ignition temperature, minimum ignition energy, and a time–
temperature relationship for ignition are basic considerations when the use
of the material in a building design is evaluated.
• 7.2.3.2 Flammability. Once a material is ignited, either in flaming or
smoldering combustion, how it burns and transmits its heat energy is also a
consideration for the fire investigator. Such factors as heat of combustion,
average and peak heat release rate, and perhaps even mass loss rate, can
be important considerations in its overall fire safety and suitability for use.
The entrainment of air has an important role in the way a fire develops
upon the material.
Material Issues
• Pac. N.W. Bell v. Century Homes, 267 OR. 46, 514 P.2d 874
(1973).
• Plaintiff property owner sued for fire damage against
Defendant, a wooden home manufacturer, for having placed
sawdust containing linseed oil, refuse and wood trimmings
into a wooden trash box kept inside its building.
• Theory: Violation of city fire code that required removal of
readily combustible materials at the end of each day’s work
and storage, outside the premises, in suitable metal
containers.
• A fire, of unknown origin started within the wooden storage
box and spread from defendant’s property to plaintiff’s.
• Defendant was held liable for its violation of the statute.
Fire Protection Issues
• Passive fire protection issues
–Delayed reporting
–Building system issues
• Active fire protection issues
– Alarm failures
–Fire suppression system failures
Passive Fire Protection Issues –
Delayed Report of Fire
• Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. AALCO Wrecking Co., Inc.,
466 F.2d 179, 185 (8th Cir. 1972).
• Defendant wrecking company neglected to post a
watchman at a demolition site.
• A fire of unknown origin began at site and burned
undetected and unreported for nearly one hour
before it was reported by a night watchman located
some three blocks away at another property.
• By that time, the fire was a raging blaze which soon
spread out of control.
• Plaintiff won and verdict was upheld on appeal.
Delayed Report of Fire
• Court stated:
“There are many instances in tort litigation where
precise causation becomes difficult to prove. There is
not an exact way to prove that the harm might have
been avoided, because the harm did in fact take place
... A plaintiff does not have the negative burden to
show that the harm could not have possibly occurred
if the defendant had performed the duty breached. It
would be absurd to say that a defendant could hide
behind such absence of proof where his own conduct
had created the fertile ground for harm and the harm
did occur.”
Passive Fire Protection Issues –
Building Systems
• NFPA 921 Chapter 7 is entirely devoted
to building systems as contributing to
the spread of the fire.
• This is not a new chapter, but what is
your experience about it?
• Is it frequently read, analyzed,
understood, followed?
Passive Fire Protection Systems
• 7.6 Impact of Passive Fire Protection Systems on
Investigation.
• 7.6.1 An investigator needs to determine whether a passive
fire protection measure failed, and if it did so, why this
occurred. The damage could have been due to problems with
the design of the system, including the initial design not
being adequate for the expected fire severity, or the fire
hazard changing over the lifetime of the structure and not
appropriately modifying the fire protection. There may have
also been problems with the initial construction or
application of the protection, or improper maintenance, such
as allowing breaches in compartment walls or damage to
applied coatings. Analysis of the damage to systems may also
aid in the development of the fire’s growth history.
Passive Fire Protection Systems –
Evaluate, document, analyze
• 7.7 Design and Installation Parameters of the System.
• 7.7.1 Simply identifying the presence of a passive fire protection
system or component is insufficient in the evaluation of that
system or component. The investigator shall evaluate whether
each system and/or component had a role in the evolution of the
fire.
• 7.7.2 If the passive fire protection system is determined to have
had a role in the evolution of the fire, additional work may be
performed to further analyze that role.
• 7.7.2.1 Aspects of the fire protection system that may be
evaluated are included in sections 8.4.2 to 8.5.5.
• 7.7.2.2 The materials used and thicknesses of each component of
the passive fire protection system shall be evaluated,
documented, and analyzed.
Evaluate, document, analyze
• 7.7.2.3 Part of the evaluation of the passive fire
protection system shall be to utilize testing, listings,
approvals, and/or certifications from recognized
testing laboratories.
• 7.7.2.4 The quality of construction/installation shall
be evaluated, documented, and analyzed.
• 7.7.3 The passive fire protection system shall be
evaluated in conjunction with an analysis of the
applicable codes, standards, guides, and
manufacturer’s instructions regulating that system.
Compartmentation –
•
•
•
Doors, penetrations, openings
7.2.2.4 Compartmentation.
7.2.2.4.1 The common mode of fire spread in a compartmented building is through open
doors, unenclosed stairways and shafts, unprotected penetrations of fire barriers, and
nonfire-stopped combustible concealed spaces. Even in buildings of combustible
construction, the common gypsum wallboard or plaster on lath protecting wood stud walls
or wood joist floors provides a significant amount of resistance to a fully developed fire.
When such barriers are properly constructed and maintained and have protected
openings, they normally will contain fires of maximum expected severity in light hazard
occupancies. Even a properly designed, constructed, and maintained barrier will not
reliably protect against fire spread indefinitely. Fire can also spread horizontally and
vertically beyond the room or area of origin and through compartments or spaces that do
not contain combustibles. Combustible surfaces on ceilings and walls of rooms, stairways,
and corridors, which in and of themselves may not be capable of transmitting fire, will be
heated and produce pyrolysis products. These products add to those of the main fire and
increase the intensity and length of flames. Fire spread rarely occurs by heat transfer
through floor/ceiling assemblies. Fire spread through floor/ceiling assemblies may occur in
the later stages of fire development or through breaches of these assemblies.
7.2.2.4.2 The investigator will want to analyze the reasons that compartmentation of the
fire failed or did not occur and which aspects of the design of the building may have been
responsible for this failure.© 2015 Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Doors (new)
• 7.4.4 Doors. Doors may be a key factor in the spread of fire. Doors may be
made of a variety of materials and be fire rated or non–fire rated. It should be
noted that if there is a door opening in a fire-rated wall or partition, it would be
required to be provided with an appropriate fire-rated door, installed as an
entire assembly. Fire-rated door assemblies are required to include rated
frames, hinges, closures, latching devices, and if provided (and allowed),
glazing. Fire doors may be of wood, steel, or steel with an insulated core of
wood or mineral material. While some doors have negligible insulating value,
others may have a heat transmission rating of 120°C, 230°C, and 340°C (250°F,
450°F, and 650°F). This means the doors will limit temperature rise on the
unexposed side to that respective value when exposed to the standard time–
temperature for 30 minutes. This insulating value aids egress, particularly in
stairwells in multistory buildings, and provides some protection against
autoignition of combustibles near the opening’s unexposed side. In addition to
the rating of the door, to be effective in limiting the spread of fire from one
compartment to another, the door must be closed. The position of doors can
change during and after a fire for a variety of reasons, including automatic
closure systems, personnel movement, and fire suppression activities.
Penetrations and Openings
• 7.7.4 The protection of openings in a structure can be a critical
aspect of fire growth and spread. The way in which these
openings are protected may be evaluated, documented, and
analyzed.
• 7.7.4.2 The protection of openings in a structure by use of
windows shall be evaluated, documented, and analyzed. This shall
include the window glass, opening mechanisms/ hardware, frame,
and construction surrounding the window. The type of glass,
thickness of the glass panes, and number of panes shall also be
included.
• 7.7.4.3 Ductwork within a structure shall be evaluated,
documented, and analyzed. Ductwork often penetrates walls,
floors, and ceilings and may be analyzed to determine what role,
if any, the ductwork had in the evolution of the fire.
Penetrations and Openings
• 7.7.4.4 Smoke and/or fire dampers shall be analyzed as part
of the ductwork for their role in the evolution of the fire. This
shall include whether smoke and/or fire dampers were
present, should have been present, and whether they
functioned as intended.
• 7.7.5 All penetrations through passive fire protection systems
shall be evaluated, documented, and analyzed to determine
whether they were appropriately protected or sealed and to
determine if they contributed to the evolution of the fire.
Additionally, all penetrations through passive fire protection
systems shall be evaluated in relation to the applicable
codes, standards, and manufacturer’s instructions.
Documentation and Data Collection
• 7.8 Documentation and Data Collection.
• 7.8.1 When the passive fire protection system is determined to be
a factor in the evolution of the fire, additional documentation and
data collection should be performed.
• 7.8.2 As part of the gathering of information, any and all available
documentation should be obtained relating to the design of the
fire protection systems. This may include design plans, design
specifications, variances approved by the authority having
jurisdiction, and any other document relating how the system was
designed.
• 7.8.3 A history of the applicable permits, which may include the
building and fire permits, shall be obtained and examined. The
permits can be used to determine the scopes of work reportedly
performed and the various parties who may have an interest in
the incident, and they may assist in establishing a timeline of
events leading up to the fire.
• 7.8.4 Any and all available invoices should be obtained and examined.
The invoices can assist the investigator in establishing what work was
performed by which parties and can provide information as to what
materials and components were purchased.
• 7.8.5 In addition to the design plans and design specifications, when
available, as-built drawings should be obtained to assist the investigator
in determining the pre-fire conditions. If the as-built drawings are not
available it may be necessary, if possible, to create as-built drawings
based on the post-fire conditions.
• 7.8.5.1 Documentation of a fire scene shall include enough
measurements, diagrams, and/or photographs so an as-built drawing or
reconstruction can occur after the fire scene is no longer available to the
investigator.
• 7.8.6 When available, maintenance, inspection, and/or testing
documentation should be obtained for any fire protection system that
may have had a role in the evolution of the fire. This documentation
should include inspection forms, photographs, invoices, etc.
• 7.8.7 The investigator should work to identify and collect any product
literature specific to the fire protection system. This may include
installation manuals, user manuals, specifications, product
manufacturer model information, and information on preengineered systems.
• 7.8.8 The identification of, handling, storage, and transfer of
evidence may be critical in allowing all interested parties the
opportunities to evaluate the evidence. Whenever possible, all
interested parties shall be notified of the loss and invited to the site
to examine the evidence in place. If the collection of evidence is
deemed necessary for further analysis of the evidence or to provide
other parties with their own opportunity to collect the evidence,
care should be taken to minimize the destruction and alternation of
the evidence during the collection and handling processes. The
destruction or alternation of the evidence without all parties consent
and/or agreement and/or presence can be deemed spoliation.
Active Fire Protection Issues –
Fire Suppression Systems
• Chapter 8 of NFPA 921 is a new chapter, since the
2014 Edition, entirely devoted to fire protection
systems.
• This is an added topic in NFPA 1033, topic 14.
• Knowledge of it is mandatory.
Active Fire Suppression Issues Importance of Fire Size Issues
• 8.2.4.5.3 Estimation of Fire Size. It may be possible to
use the activation or non-activation of detectors to
determine the fire’s size at a given point in time. The
minimum fire size necessary to activate the system can
be estimated through testing or calculation. If the
system did not activate, but was found to be properly
designed and in working order, it may be possible to
use this estimated fire size as the maximum fire size;
whereas if the system did activate, a minimum fire size
may be established. Knowing the maximum or
minimum fire size can be an aid in determining the
cause of the fire and means of its spread.
Active Fire Suppression Systems –
Importance of Time Line
• 8.2.4.5.4 Development of Timeline. If the detection and alarm
system is connected to a monitored system, these records can
be used to establish a timeline of flame and fire spread. In some
cases, the specific location or zone of the first alarming detector
can be used to narrow down an area of origin. Some systems
provide only alarm and trouble data, and do not specify a
particular zone or device. This information can be helpful in
comparing the time of system activation to the time and
observations of first arriving fire fighters or other witnesses, in
assessment of the growth and spread of the fire. It can also be
observed where manual alarms were activated however this
may be more indicative of the locations of building occupants
and their escape routes than the actual location of the fire
origin.
The Bay County Case
• $52 million fire loss at a waste-to-energy facility in
Panama City, Florida (Bay County).
• The facility burns garbage -- Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) – to generate electricity.
• Fires are common from spontaneous combustion of
MSW, which is why the fire suppression system was
supposed to be so great.
• Place burned down in 2008, so new system was
installed to make sure this would not happen again
• What do you think happened?
The Bay County Case – Aerial Shot
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
The Bay County Case
Burden of Proof on Plaintiff
•
•
•
•
•
Not easy to prove a spread case
Rock is not easy.
Neither are spread fire cases.
That was particularly true in Bay County.
We had a heavy duty.
The Monitored System Wasn’t Recorded
• The alarm for the system did not activate during the fire and
we had no computer record showing when the system
discharged or that it discharged.
• The reason the alarm did not activate is because the system
was not drained after completing replacement of the
sprinkler heads some weeks before the fire.
• Instead, this dry system was left filled with water, in effect
turning the “dry pipe” system into a “wet pipe” system. (This
is known in the fire protection field as being “laid-up wet.”)
• Water in the system means the alarm cannot activate and
that no computer records will show when the system
activated, because the alarm is not “monitored” but is tied in
only to the facility’s control room.
Witnesses Were Key in that Case
• There are two categories of witnesses available
to assist in developing the above three-pronged
investigation:
• Lay witnesses: eye witness
– Critical to the time line and description of the
origin and its spread, but stress and other factors
can affect their memory
• Professional fire department personnel
– Often more attuned to the type of issues we
need to establish (pace, speed, size, dimension)
Five Key Questions for Witnesses
as to Fire Origin in Spread Cases
• Where was the fire when you first saw it?
• What was the size of the fire in height and
width?
• What was the shape or dimension of the fire?
• What property was involved in the fire?
• What material was burning and how was it
burning in terms of rapidity, density of
smoke, and direction of fire spread?
Bay County: First Witness
• The first witness to the fire is Tommy Sapp, a
front end loader operator.
• He saw the fire on side 2 of the refuse
building, close to the left wall on the east,
i.e., the wall to one’s left if entering from
Bay 8.
• The fire was closer to the back end of the
building (the conveyor side) than the front
end of the building (the bay door side).
Side 2 = Pile 2
Developing a Time Line
• Comparison of witness statements.
• Comparison of records, such as alarm records, fire
department records, water discharge records, weather
reports,
• Obviously, following the questioning of the first
eyewitness to the fire, other eyewitnesses need to be
interviewed so as to pick up the fire spread time line
and develop it through the ensuing stages of the fire.
• Both first arriving and later arriving fire department
personnel must be interviewed and the fire progress
traced through all subsequent stages of the fire until
extinguishment.
Time Line
• Time line based on the CRO Log, supervisor’s “Timeline” report, FD
Report (PCFD-002), and video surveillance:
6:30 pm: Tommy Sapp notifies control room (Timeline and CRO Log)
6:30:40 pm: Surveillance Camera 5 moves to find the fire (video)
6:30:50 pm: Bryan Dalton begins climbing ladder to the catwalk
(video)
6:31 pm: Bryan Dalton gets to the catwalk (Timeline)
6:31:19 pm: Water begins discharging from Monitor 2 (video)
6:32 pm: Bryan Dalton starts Monitor 2 (Timeline)
6:32:03 pm: Monitor 2 aimed at ceiling, spraying it significantly (video)
6:32:31 pm: Monitor 2 moves back down from ceiling (video)
6:32:40 pm: Monitor 2 begins to hit the fire (video)
6:33:00 pm: Monitor 1 begins to discharge water and move toward
fire (video)
Time Line
6:33:15 pm: Image of the fire disappears from screen and Camera 5
goes out (video)
6:33:30 pm: Monitor 1 now aimed at fire, but Camera 2 goes dark
(video)
6:34 pm: Bryan Dalton supposedly instructs Marcus Cowan to call 911
(Timeline, but CRO Log says Cowan called at 6:39)
6:34 or 6:35 pm: Bryan Dalton is at Bay 8 and sees that the fire has
spread all the way to the door itself (testimony of Bryan Dalton).
6:35 pm: Bryan Dalton calls Bart Bartholemew (CRO Log)
6:39 pm: Marcus Cowan calls 911 (CRO Log)
6:42 pm: Fire Department receives the call/alarm (F.D. report)
6:48 pm: Fire Department arrives (F.D. report)
6:50 pm: “Fire Department is on-site and begins to fight the fire in the
Refuse Building” (Time line)
Time Line
6:5? pm [shortly after arrival]: Fire Department observes fire spread
from Pile 2 to Pile 1, now involving the whole tipping floor (fire
report).
1:31:25: Controlled, according to Panama City FD (PCFD-003)
1:31:26: Last unit, according to Panama City FD (PCFD-003)
Fire Modeling
• “P8.3.4.3.5* Fire Modeling. A variety of
computer models are available that may
be used to calculate the activation time
of a suppression system and in some
cases its potential impact on fire
development. Regardless of which
model is used, engineering guidelines
for substantiating a fire model for a
given application should be employed.”
Codes and Standards
• 8.3.4.1 Code Analysis.
• 8.3.4.1.1* While codes enforced by various jurisdictions will
vary from one jurisdiction to another, the base prescriptive
code for water-based fire suppression systems in most
places is NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems. Additional codes are available for the installation of
sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings and
manufactured homes, and in residential occupancies up to
four stories in height. Other prescriptive codes provide
guidance on such issues as standpipe and hose systems,
water spray systems, foam-enhanced systems, and a number
of other topics. The requirements of these codes may be
adopted as-is, or may be adopted with modifications by
model codes such as the International Building Code or with
variations put in place by local officials.
Codes and Standards
• 8.3.4.1 Code Analysis. ….
• Whenever a code analysis of water-based fire suppression systems
is conducted, the investigator should determine the following
before proceeding with a code analysis:
(1) What code was in place when the building received its certificate
of occupancy?
(2) Are there local amendments to that code (see the AHJ for this
information)?
(3) Were variances to the code granted during the design of the
building based on performance-based analysis or some other
justification? If so, design analysis reports should be available.
(4) What maintenance codes were in place during the lifetime of the
suppression system?
(5) Does the insurance provider have additional suppression
requirements that had an impact on the system design?
Codes and Standards
• 7.9.1 Code Analysis.
• 7.9.1.1 There may be numerous codes to analyze in order to
perform a thorough evaluation. At a minimum, the building
code, fire prevention code, and property maintenance codes
should be reviewed. In addition, NFPA 101, Life Safety Code,
may need to be reviewed if it was legally adopted by either
the local jurisdiction or the state in which the fire occurred.
• 7.9.1.2 The building code that was in effect when a permit
was issued to construct or modify a structure is typically
indicated on the permit application and/or building permit.
As the fire prevention and property maintenance codes
mostly contain provisions for existing buildings, the applicable
edition will be the one in effect on the day of the fire. Both
the name of each code and the specific edition are very
important.
Bay County Case
• “[T]he base prescriptive code for waterbased fire suppression systems in most
places is NFPA 13, Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems
• NFPA 850
• Is it a code?
• Is it a standard?
• It is a “Recommended Practice”
• But what might that mean?
Florida Fire Prevention Code
• Provision 69A-60.002 of the FFPC states:
• (2) The following publications are hereby adopted and
incorporated by reference herein and added to the Florida Fire
Prevention Code and shall take effect on the effective date of this
rule: ….
NFPA 13, 2002 edition, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems …
NFPA 20, 2003 edition, Standard for the Installation of Stationary
Pumps for Fire Protection ….
NFPA 850, 2005 edition, Recommended Practice for Fire Protection
for Electric Generating Plants and High Voltage Direct Current
Converter Stations
• The Florida Building Code and FFPC thus incorporate by reference
NFPA 13, NFPA 20, and NFPA 850.
Active Fire Suppression Systems
• Courts consistently rule that when a fire suppression system fails,
it is irrelevant that someone else caused the fire because the
purposed of such a system is to control fires caused from within.
• Cartel Capital Corporation v. Fire Co. of New Jersey, 81 NJ 548,
410 A.2d 674 (1980).
• Restaurant owner sued retailer and manufacturer of a fire
extinguishing system that failed to operate for negligence and
product defects after a fire caused extensive damage to the
restaurant.
• Defense argued that the plaintiff’s recovery should be barred or
reduced because the fire was caused by grease accumulation and
“the allegedly careless conduct of plaintiff’s employees in stacking
the paper plates so near the grill and leaving the kitchen
unattended.”
Active Fire Suppression Systems
• Court deemed conduct of plaintiff’s employees
irrelevant and will not bar or reduce the plaintiff’s
recovery.
• Court stated:
“A serious question exists whether these factors could
be deemed, as a matter of law, to be a proximate cause
of the damage since the purpose of the Ansul
equipment was to extinguish a fire on the grill
irrespective of its origin. …. Plaintiff had no fair warning
that the system he purchased which was designed to
extinguish fires, irrespective of cause, would fail to
function as a consequence of a design defect.
Defendant did not meet its burden of proof.”
Negligent Service of System
• Wollenhaupt v. Andersen Fire Equip. Co., 440 N.W.2d 447,
448-49 (Neb. 1989).
• Plaintiff who was burned by a fire while working with
highly flammable solvent on his employer’s premises sued
the fire equipment company that was responsible for
servicing the fire protection system on the grounds that
had the system functioned properly, he would have
sustained substantially milder injuries.
• Defendant argued that the plaintiff caused the fire and that
plaintiff still would have been injured even had the fire
suppression system functioned correctly.
• Trial court instructed the jury that the fire equipment
company was not liable if the defendant’s negligence was
the sole proximate cause of the fire.
Negligent Service of System
• The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, stating:
“The plaintiff is not claiming that the defendant caused the fire
that injured him. Instead the claim is that if the defendant had
properly serviced the fire protection system the fire, whatever
its origin, would not have caused the plaintiff to suffer severe
injury. The origin of the fire in this case was, therefore,
irrelevant. Again, the claim is not that the defendant
negligently started the fire, but that the fire, whatever its origin,
would have been extinguished had the fire protection system
been properly maintained and had it been so maintained, the
plaintiff could not have suffered injury. If a defendant has a
duty to foresee a particular type of harmful force, such as fire,
and guard others against the harm that the force can do, and
the defendant fails in its duty, the cause of the fire is irrelevant
to the liability of the defendant.”
Prior Knowledge of Safety Issues
• Comparative negligence revisited.
• If owner of building failed to maintain the
sprinkler system and now sues over operation
issues of that system, will comparative negligence
be explored?
• Discovery of pre-fire reports citing hazardous or
unsafe conditions provided to building owners,
occupants, or property managers will be pursued.
– Unsafe storage/warehousing practices
– Inoperative fire alarms
– Sprinkler system defects (valves, etc.)
Pre-Fire Citation Records
• Fire marshal or fire inspector records.
• Building departments or department of
licenses and inspections.
• OSHA reports.
• Insurance underwriting files.
• Internal records as to the building, additions,
inspections, maintenance, safety reports.
Photographic and Video Evidence
• Professional media.
–Raw footage
•
•
•
•
•
Fire marshal.
Witness cell phones.
Social media – Youtube, etc.
Pre-fire images.
Aerials (Bing, Google Earth).
– Go back later, after fire, for updates
Damage Analysis Issues
• Important that the “spread” damages can be separated from the initial
fire damages, for courts to deem the cause irrelevant.
• 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 743 (2009) (“plaintiff does not have the burden
to prove what caused the fire, or to negate plaintiff’s own negligence as
a cause of the fire, because the cause of the fire is irrelevant to
defendant’s duty where defendant has the duty to foresee the harmful
force of fire, and to guard another against the harm which that force can
do.”); Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Poarch, 292 F.2d 449,
451 (9th Cir. 1961) (holding that “once it is established that the owner of
a building has negligently allowed . . . a fire hazard and a fire does
start[,] the actual cause - whether deliberate, accidental, or an act of
God - is immaterial.”); Atmore Truckers Ass’n v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co.,
218 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1955) (holding that “the liability of appellant
is not dependent on a showing that it was negligent in starting the fire,”
but rather in showing that it failed to use reasonable care to prevent the
fire from spreading once it started).
Expanded Checklist of Questions for
Witnesses
• Where were you when you first observed the fire?
• At the time you first observed the fire, what were the lighting
conditions?
• Did anything impair your observation of the fire, i.e., was
your path of vision blocked or otherwise obstructed?
• Who was with you?
• When you first saw the fire, could you tell what was burning?
• Describe that item’s height, width, shape, composition, age.
• What was around that item?
• How high was the ceiling above that item?
• How high off the floor was that item?
Witnesses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location of item on fire in relation to fire sprinkler heads
Were any sprinkler heads discharging? Where?
Could you see water coming down? Where?
Did you hear any alarms going off? Where?
Was there a hose anywhere nearby? Where?
Describe the dimensions of the fire, i.e., height, width, shape
Describe the amount and nature of the smoke
Describe changes in size or shape or spread
What else got ignited as it spread?
Did the flames grow higher or lower?
Did it spread at ground level or at some other height?
Witnesses
• Did it spread more in one direction or in all directions?
• Spreading gradually or rapidly?
• Did fire spread contiguously, i.e., to property immediately
adjacent to the fire or, was the fire “jumping” from area to
area?
• How long did it take for the fire department to arrive?
• How many arrived?
• Where did they set up their water supply?
• What were the weather conditions?
• What direction was the wind going?
• Could you see the fire following the path of the wind?
Fire Department Issues
• Are there cases against fire
departments?
• I don’t care.
• I don’t go there.
Cave Man Lawyer
• https://screen.yahoo.com/unfrozencave-man-lawyer-1-223412426.html
John Reis of Smith Moore Leatherwood
P: 704-384-2692,E: [email protected]

Fire Spread Theories: Thinking Outside the Origin Area

Transcription

Similar documents

snookie`s cookies

Factsheet - The Thomas Moore Statue

$25.00 OFF

annual report

“How to Become a Writer” by Lorrie Moore from Charters, Ann, Ed

Immobili di Prestigio Srl 00198 Rome, Via Po 37 +39 06 85305436

Case Study: Calzedonia Spa

Mark R. Somerstein (MS 9721) Benjamin L. Schneider (BS 2004

2014 Annual Report

AC Moore is your store for