Fire Engineering Training Community

Where firefighters come to talk training

This is a tried question, but here goes. It appears some fire departments have chose not to respond to carbon monoxide calls because of libility issues. Does anyone know of a fire department being sued for not responding to this type of call and why some departments have this fobia of libility to responding. Thanks.

Views: 299

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You respond to CO alarms for the same reason that you respond to Odor of Gas and noxious odors (sewer gas). We have the PPE to go into the hazard zone and equipment to detect it. There is no reason not to respond, unless those two things are absent. I guess if you work for a Vollie Dept, you could make an argument that you just don't have the man power, but I would have to see a LOT of these types of calls, before I'd say that we couldn't support the task.
We are the people that get called on the worst day of someone’s life. Act accordingly.
another question? how do you know its a carbon monoxide call? you may be called to something else and it could turn out to be CM. or vice versa. we respond, find out what the situation is and call in the correct team for the job if we need help.
The reason why I posted this question to all was a simple one, I was at a county wide Fire Officers meeting recently and a couple of departments in the southern part of county stated that because of libility they were not going to respond to any CO calls. To Larry's Post, yes those mentioned are volunteer depts, but manpower was not an issue. I think an issue rose when one of the depts did respond and the citizen they tried to help, talked law suit two weeks after the response. Now here in Wisconsin if a fire dept is using air testers, those testing and interperting the readings must be at haz-mat tech level certification.

This maybe one of the reasons why, but could be a number of internal reasons to those depts. To Sara's Post, That is what I explained when I talked at the officers meeting, and we all know there is no such thing as a routine call, things happen sometimes beyound our control. To. Rich's Post, in a nut shell, you bet.
Most gas detectors are about as idiot proof as a thermal imager, you need training so that you can interpret the readings or track down the source in the case of a gas detector, but if the gas is present, the machine will tell you. Around here, if we get a positive reading, we tell the people to get out. What was the guy’s complaint?

On a separate note, unless the State government is paying for the training, setting the standard for using a gas detector at the Tech level seems like the kind of unfunded mandate that you should get lawyers and the foes of intrusive government involved in. We use gas monitors for overhaul and sick person calls. Does the State roll a Hazmat Tech for every call that might involve the presence of CO?


Gary A. Janka said:
The reason why I posted this question to all was a simple one, I was at a county wide Fire Officers meeting recently and a couple of departments in the southern part of county stated that because of libility they were not going to respond to any CO calls. To Larry's Post, yes those mentioned are volunteer depts, but manpower was not an issue. I think an issue rose when one of the depts did respond and the citizen they tried to help, talked law suit two weeks after the response. Now here in Wisconsin if a fire dept is using air testers, those testing and interperting the readings must be at haz-mat tech level certification.

This maybe one of the reasons why, but could be a number of internal reasons to those depts. To Sara's Post, That is what I explained when I talked at the officers meeting, and we all know there is no such thing as a routine call, things happen sometimes beyound our control. To. Rich's Post, in a nut shell, you bet.
There have been very few CO calls that our department has responded to that either we or ATCO gas didn't find the problem and remedied the situation. With the correct equipment and a reasonable amount of training, CO calls are not an issue. Proper SOG's go a long way in ensuring the call is done in a manner that is safe and complete.
Larry, the dept in question, after further checking on this, seemed they did not to have EMS pagged to check the citizen over, again another difference here in Wisconsin. Many rural areas here run EMS on it's own, and not part of Fire which conflicts between both sometimes run high. Not an excuse but I think another unspoken issue was training and the lack of guidelines or policies related to this type of call. I agree with your remarks on the state needing to butt out. I was just wondering if other parts of the country had an issue like this.

As for me and my dept we have policies in place and the proper training and support to deal with this and other emergencies as they arise, but I found it strange that a dept would make a statement on not responding to a certain type of call over another and want to know if this is isolated or the start of something bigger. Thanks to all of you who coment on this post. I look forward to anymore comments or thoughts on this matter.

Larry Lasich said:
Most gas detectors are about as idiot proof as a thermal imager, you need so that you can interpret the readings or track down the source in the case of a gas detector, but if the gas is present, the machine will tell you. Around here, if we get a positive reading, we tell the people to get out. What was the guy’s complaint?

On a separate note, unless the State government is paying for the training, setting the standard for using a gas detector at the Tech level seems like the kind of unfunded mandate that you should get lawyers and the foes of intrusive government involved in. We use gas monitors for overhaul and sick person calls. Does the State roll a Hazmat Tech for every call that might involve the presence of CO?


Gary A. Janka said:
The reason why I posted this question to all was a simple one, I was at a county wide Fire Officers meeting recently and a couple of departments in the southern part of county stated that because of libility they were not going to respond to any CO calls. To Larry's Post, yes those mentioned are volunteer depts, but manpower was not an issue. I think an issue rose when one of the depts did respond and the citizen they tried to help, talked law suit two weeks after the response. Now here in Wisconsin if a fire dept is using air testers, those testing and interperting the readings must be at haz-mat tech level certification.

This maybe one of the reasons why, but could be a number of internal reasons to those depts. To Sara's Post, That is what I explained when I talked at the officers meeting, and we all know there is no such thing as a routine call, things happen sometimes beyound our control. To. Rich's Post, in a nut shell, you bet.
What I want to ask is why the Consumer Product safety Commission has not mandated that all Home Generators be equipped with and Envirogencat carbon monoxide device. This device reduces Carbon Monoxide emissions by 98% and then 50% of the calls that Fire Fighters currently respond to would be eliminated .
MIAMI-DADE FIRE RESCUE currently has adopted these units for their PPVs and JAWS of LIFE to provide a safer work environment for the Fire Fighter and rescue victim.

www.Envirogencats.com
Robert Aratari said:
What I want to ask is why the Consumer Product safety Commission has not mandated that all Home Generators be equipped with and Envirogencat carbon monoxide device. This device reduces Carbon Monoxide emissions by 98% and then 50% of the calls that Fire Fighters currently respond to would be eliminated .
MIAMI-DADE FIRE RESCUE currently has adopted these units for their PPVs and JAWS of LIFE to provide a safer work environment for the Fire Fighter and rescue victim. www.Envirogencats.com
Interesting product. I doubt the CSPC will endorse a single product but look to promote or require a certain emission standard? Certainly the cost of your product would make it a difficult issue by adding as much as 25% to the cost of a small generator?

I'm also not sure they'd eliminate 50% or CO calls. In 23 years I can think of just a few CO calls that were generator related, whereas a huge proportion of actual events were heating system related and an even larger amount of responses were battery issues where the homeowner didn't know what to do.
Thank you for your comment Adam,

The first thing in response to the cost factor is this , How much would you or better yet someone who has lost a family member pay to have a product that would have saved their life , $100 ,200 2000, 2,000,000 ? I keep close track of the people that die every day and there has been 9 deaths in the last two weeks from using home generators including an entire family. The cost of the product is directly related to the High Cost of raw materials . My hope's are that as my company grows I will be able to bring this price down as orders facilitate this.
My thoughts are this , if its 10% or 50% percent .... if my product saves one life.... does that not justify implementation of a precautionary device much a Carbon Monoxide detector that lets you know you are in danger ?
I appreciate you question very much , it is a good one. I just ask the this question to everyone what is the value on someines life !

Adam Miceli said:
Robert Aratari said:
What I want to ask is why the Consumer Product safety Commission has not mandated that all Home Generators be equipped with and Envirogencat carbon monoxide device. This device reduces Carbon Monoxide emissions by 98% and then 50% of the calls that Fire Fighters currently respond to would be eliminated .
MIAMI-DADE FIRE RESCUE currently has adopted these units for their PPVs and JAWS of LIFE to provide a safer work environment for the Fire Fighter and rescue victim. www.Envirogencats.com
Interesting product. I doubt the CSPC will endorse a single product but look to promote or require a certain emission standard? Certainly the cost of your product would make it a difficult issue by adding as much as 25% to the cost of a small generator?

I'm also not sure they'd eliminate 50% or CO calls. In 23 years I can think of just a few CO calls that were generator related, whereas a huge proportion of actual events were heating system related and an even larger amount of responses were battery issues where the homeowner didn't know what to do.
Robert Aratari said:
Thank you for your comment Adam,

The first thing in response to the cost factor is this , How much would you or better yet someone who has lost a family member pay to have a product that would have saved their life , $100 ,200 2000, 2,000,000 ? I keep close track of the people that die every day and there has been 9 deaths in the last two weeks from using home generators including an entire family. The cost of the product is directly related to the High Cost of raw materials . My hope's are that as my company grows I will be able to bring this price down as orders facilitate this.
My thoughts are this , if its 10% or 50% percent .... if my product saves one life.... does that not justify implementation of a precautionary device much a Carbon Monoxide detector that lets you know you are in danger ?
I appreciate you question very much , it is a good one. I just ask the this question to everyone what is the value on someines life !


I understand and agree that the device seems to be worthy of use, but we all know the gov't does put a price on millions of things that could save lives. Heck we could have cars that don't let drunks drive and guns that don't allow thief's to fire them, but politics and money win the day. Clearly requiring a CO detector be used with every generator would be easier and cheaper and puts the requirement to be safe back on the user. Maybe they should require that CO detectors be sold bundled with the generators?
Anyway, this really isn't the place to discuss specific products, but good luck it seems like you're on to something.
I can agree with you on this and let just say thank you taking the time to speak with me on the subject !

Regards

Adam Miceli said:
Robert Aratari said:
Thank you for your comment Adam,

The first thing in response to the cost factor is this , How much would you or better yet someone who has lost a family member pay to have a product that would have saved their life , $100 ,200 2000, 2,000,000 ? I keep close track of the people that die every day and there has been 9 deaths in the last two weeks from using home generators including an entire family. The cost of the product is directly related to the High Cost of raw materials . My hope's are that as my company grows I will be able to bring this price down as orders facilitate this.
My thoughts are this , if its 10% or 50% percent .... if my product saves one life.... does that not justify implementation of a precautionary device much a Carbon Monoxide detector that lets you know you are in danger ?
I appreciate you question very much , it is a good one. I just ask the this question to everyone what is the value on someines life !


I understand and agree that the device seems to be worthy of use, but we all know the gov't does put a price on millions of things that could save lives. Heck we could have cars that don't let drunks drive and guns that don't allow thief's to fire them, but politics and money win the day. Clearly requiring a CO detector be used with every generator would be easier and cheaper and puts the requirement to be safe back on the user. Maybe they should require that CO detectors be sold bundled with the generators?
Anyway, this really isn't the place to discuss specific products, but good luck it seems like you're on to something.
We respond to CO alarm activations for the same reason we respond to fire alarms.

When we respond to an AFA, we expect to find a fire when we get there. When we respond to a CO alarm, we expect to find CO when we get there.

To properly investigate a CO alarm activation takes some time. ALL potential sources must be checked.

Most CO alarms activate based on time vs. exposure. A low level of CO over a longer period of time will cause the alarm to activate, as will a higher exposure over a short period.

Because CO is odorless and cannot be seen, it is even more important to respond and investigate using the proper equipment. I prefer at least a 3 gas meter so you can verify CO, O2, and Combustible gas readings.

We can limit our liability by being properly trained to investigate these incidents and taking our time to investigate all potential sources. Not responding does not remove liability as I am fairly certain most fire departments investigate these calls for service.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Policy Page

CONTRIBUTORS NOTE

Our contributors' posts are not vetted by the Fire Engineering technical board, and reflect the views and opinions of the individual authors. Anyone is welcome to participate.

For vetted content, please go to www.fireengineering.com/archives.

Fire Engineering Editor in Chief Bobby Halton
We are excited to have you participate in our discussions and interactive forums. Before you begin posting, please take a moment to read our policy page HERE. -- Bobby Halton

Be Alert for Spam
We actively monitor the community for spam, however some does slip through. Please use common sense and caution when clicking links. If you suspect you've been hit by spam, e-mail peter.prochilo@clarionevents.com.

FE Podcasts

Tuesday

Sons of the Flag

with

Sons of the Flag

CALL IN AND JOIN THE SHOW

1-877-497-3973 (Toll Free)
or 1-760-454-8852

Check out the schedule of
UPCOMING PODCASTS

© 2019   Created by fireeng.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service