Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Private Firefighters

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A free society would consist only of private firefighting companies, right? That would mean each property owner would have the option of signing a contract with one of those companies. But if there is a fire on a property that has no contract with any company, does the potential of the fire(spreading to other properties) give the companies a right to go on their property and distinguish the fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can simplify the example by asking it this way: if my neighbor's house is on fire and there is a real threat to mine, can I go put out the fire without his consent?

In general, the answer is: yes, you may protect your property, and your neighbor may not legitimately stop you from protecting your property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not pondered the idea of a private fire fighting company. I always assumed that the fire departments would be volunteer departments, as they used to be.

My father was a volunteer firefighter for over 20 years in Texas. When I was a kid (back in the 70s) I remember going with my parents and other firefighter families up to the local shopping center. We would sit at the store fronts with our little folding tables and ask patrons for donations for the fire department. We would display pictures of the trucks and other equipment the department needed to buy to protect the ever-growing community. The firefighters would talk about what they do, how they do it and the importance of every citizen to donate something, anything to help the cause. They always received the money they needed to buy the latest and greatest equipment. And corporate sponsors helped too, of course. Everyone had something to lose, so everyone gave, even if it was just a dollar or two.

My mom was a volunteer dispatcher. The dispatchers would take turns being on call. The fire phone (yes, a lot like the Bat Phone) would ring at any hour when my mother was on call, and she would spring into action. She would be in our utility room on the radio telling the firefighters where to go, etc. When her shift was up, she would drive the radio equipment to the next home so that dispatcher could await her shift. (They had several radios and fire phones so there would be no lapses in coverage.)

If it worked then, why wouldn't it work now?

In response to your specific post, I think private firefighting companies could work too. I think the departments would have to be split up into specific coverage areas to ensure everyone has protection. I am not sure how they would be paid, though. I guess you would just pay as you use their services. Insurance companies would end up paying the fees I guess?

Like you said, a fire can threaten more properties than just the one where the fire started, so I am not sure how different contracts on different homes with different fire companies would work??? Although, the volunteer departments were always helping each other out. It was not uncommon for 2 or 3 different volunteer districts to show up at one large fire. I guess if one company puts out a fire for another, they could bill the other company?

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A free society would consist only of private firefighting companies, right?

I sure hope not. There would have to be at least one other private company or building too, or else what fires would there be to put out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if there is a fire on a property that has no contract with any company, does the potential of the fire(spreading to other properties) give the companies a right to go on their property and distinguish the fire?
The irresistible fact does give a man (or his agents) that right, and this is general: if a man's rights are threatened, he need not wait until they have actually been violated to act in defense of his rights. Think of how denying that that would work when dealing with a mugger -- you have to wait until the bullet enters your head to fight back? Not really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can simplify the example by asking it this way: if my neighbor's house is on fire and there is a real threat to mine, can I go put out the fire without his consent?In general, the answer is: yes, you may protect your property, and your neighbor may not legitimately stop you from protecting your property.
What if you're not a nearby neighbor? Can any individual go on that person's property without permission and try to put out the fire?
The irresistible fact does give a man (or his agents) that right, and this is general: if a man's rights are threatened, he need not wait until they have actually been violated to act in defense of his rights. Think of how denying that that would work when dealing with a mugger -- you have to wait until the bullet enters your head to fight back? Not really.
By what standard can you judge if a man's rights are being "threatened"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you're not a nearby neighbor? Can any individual go on that person's property without permission and try to put out the fire?
If it's agent of the neighbor (like his fire-company or someone who heeds his cries for help), nothing changes; yes, they may save his property. [Added clarification: By "his", I mean the neighbor who is threatened by the burning fire, and who wants the real threat removed.]

As for the question about the nature of the threat, you'd have to give much more info: is the neighboring house 200 meters away, or is this a duplex where they share a common wall, or something in between? Is the neighbors whole house really on fire, or has he got a controlled fire in a trash can. Those are the kinds of facts about reality that one would consider.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any individual go on that person's property without permission and try to put out the fire?
I have a somewhat different version of this from SN. Any person "can", so the question is whether a stranger with no relationship to the owner would be acting rightly or wrongly in fighting the fire. In a very narrow sense, if your rights are not being threatened, then you must have permission to be on the person's property. But permission does not always need to be explicit, sometimes it can be assumed. In ordinary life, you can generally assume that a man would want his property saved and would appreciate you putting out the fire, so I would not consider a person virtuous for letting a house burn down because he did not have explicit permission to cross the property line and put out the fire. It is imaginable that the owner intended to destroy the house by burning, in which case I think it would be more likely that he would put up a sign saying "Yes, I am burning down the house, please stay out".

Civilized men should respect the rights of other men, which includes the sanctity of property. This does not mean that civilized men should ignore the plight of neighbors whose property or life is being threatened, simple for want of a signed permission slip. A rational man would recognise the objective value of having a society where members are willing to aid a person in an emergency, and would not act counter to that value. That would mean not suing a person for damages just in case he really did plan to burn the house down -- unless of course he had a "House Destruction In Progress, Keep Out" sign up. Where the "complete stranger" issue becomes relevant is that the hired agent has an actual right to be on the property. But anybody should be there fighting the fire is they can (non-sacrificially).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being over-simplistic, and it sounds like I'm in agreement with David, but if one sees an unattended fire, I believe it should be put out. We can't have burning embers floating around catching everyone else's property on fire, and embers can travel farther than most people realize. Much less if it starts a brush or forest fire...now many people's homes or businesses may be threatened, fuel tanks could explode, etc., etc. The closest, most readily available fire department needs to put out unattended and/or out-of-control fires immediately. Forget coulda, shoulda, woulda and just do it! When the whole town burns down and people have died and/or lost property and everyone is left pointing the finger, this whole argument won't matter, will it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the question about the nature of the threat, you'd have to give much more info: is the neighboring house 200 meters away, or is this a duplex where they share a common wall, or something in between? Is the neighbors whole house really on fire, or has he got a controlled fire in a trash can. Those are the kinds of facts about reality that one would consider.

There are many possibilities how and where a fire is burning, so is there an objective definition explaining when a man's rights are being threatened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rational man would recognise the objective value of having a society where members are willing to aid a person in an emergency, and would not act counter to that value. That would mean not suing a person for damages just in case he really did plan to burn the house down -- unless of course he had a "House Destruction In Progress, Keep Out" sign up.

But couldnt that property owner still sue a stranger for putting out the fire? I understand what you're saying about morally right, but that seems like it might be different in this case to legal rights, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many possibilities how and where a fire is burning, so is there an objective definition explaining when a man's rights are being threatened?
Rather than "definition", I'd say that there is an objective judgement that can be made. Given all the relevant factors, one can make an objective judgement about the question: how likely is it that the fire on property A will affect property B? This does not have to be an exact likelihood; as long as it crosses some minimum level of risk, one's action is justified.
But couldnt that property owner still sue a stranger for putting out the fire?
Actually, the guy who was forced to defend his property might have a good legal case if he wants to sue the guy who threatened his property.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying about morally right, but that seems like it might be different in this case to legal rights, right?
Sure, he could sue. But look at what it means to sue someone. (I have this recollection from when I was a kid, and some other kids would say wierd stuff like "I'm gonna sue you!!" when there was something they don't like. Adults kinda know better, but IMO not a lot better). What that means is that you're claiming that the respondent caused you damage, that they knew or should have known that damage would result, and that they had no right to cause that damage. If there was no damage, then suing is pointless because you will get nothing. If you you can't even show that there was damage, this suit isn't going to get anywhere (pursuing such a frivilous suit could get an attorney disbarred, and probably would result in summary dismissal). If you can establish actual damage, it is still unlikely that you could collect anything if the respondent were acting in a normal, responsible, civilized fashion. If you did intend to destroy the house by burning and the respondent hosed the house down to save your property, the jury would still have to determine that a reasonable person would not conclude that he had permission to fight the fire. Ordinarily, you would assume that a person grant permission to strangers to save property from accidents -- if my house catches on fire, I certainly hope a passerby does something to save my property, SN certainly hopes a passerby does something to save my property (a calculated bet), and you certainly hope a passerby does something to save my property (another calculated bet).

The thing is that, at least right now, there is still a fair relation between "moral right" and "legal right" in civil law. Because it actually is not a crime to cause damage to a person's property, the law operates in terms of broader conceptual guidelines. In contrast to criminal law where there are bright lines in the sand (uh...) saying "thou shalt not steal", civil law works on the principle that since the class of allowed and disallowed actions is not crystal clear and especially is based on the idea that an action causes damage, then you have to consider whether it is reasonable to expect a certain action to result in damage. And importantly, the law does not and cannot require man to be omniscient in order to be moral. It is only in bizarre cases that putting out a fire will cause damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, trespass is the intentional invasion of the plaintiff's real property without permission. The invasion must interfere with the plaintiff's rights; e.g. his right of exclusive control of his property. There does not need to be physical damage to the property in order for the plaintiff to recover. See Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 154 (Wis. 1997), where plaintiffs were awarded nominal (1$) compensatory damages and $100,000 punitive damages against defendant after defendant, having been told by plaintiff that it had no permission to do so, crossed a portion of plaintiff's land with heavy equipment during the winter, and where the court found that no physical damage whatsoever had been sustained by the actual property.

Public and private necessity are available to defendants as affirmative defenses. In the latter, defendant is held responsible only for actual damages caused if he can show that he acted reasonably under the circumstances in response to a reasonable necessity, which would be very easy to do in the situation where the invasion occurred while defendant was trying to put out a fire on plaintiff's property.

So you can sue and win a trespass claim, even if there is no physical damage. But you must prove that the invasion interfered with your right of exclusive control, and if the defendant can prove he acted reasonably, he will only be held liable for the actual damages caused by his invasion.

-Q

Edit: added bolded text.

Edited by Qwertz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. Well, I stand corrected. Then I would change my advice: because you cannot be certain that a man would not sue you for extinguishing his burning house and since it is possible that there would be actual non-trivial damage (for example the cost of completing the fire / demolition), then you should not put your interests at risk by trespassing. Not to say that I agree with the way the law apparently is, but what is, is, and has its consequences. Although... I need to dig into Good Samaritan laws which I thought relieve a person of liability for such damages, but maybe that's how it was packaged and not how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A free society would consist only of private firefighting companies, right? That would mean each property owner would have the option of signing a contract with one of those companies. But if there is a fire on a property that has no contract with any company, does the potential of the fire(spreading to other properties) give the companies a right to go on their property and distinguish the fire?

You mean give it honors of distinction? :lol:

Seriously, yes, they would. They would have the right on the grounds that it's a threat to the property of the neighbors. Remember, rights theory says that you have the right to your life, your liberty, the fruits of your labors and the pursuit of your happiness so long as you don't encroach upon the rights of others. Encroaching means initiating force or the threat of force against another's person or property. In this case there is a clear threat of force (destruction) to the person and/or property of the neighbor.

One addendum, keep in mind that fire fighting would likely be taken care of as part of the contract of buying a home in a development. Iows, lots of developments would require you to pay a fee for fire fighters as part of the agreement for living in the development. People usually try to seek rational arrangements for living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed they [good Samaritan laws, that is] may; I speak only of common law trespass. Not all states have enacted good Samaritan laws, though. However, I rather think that a person in such a situation would undoubtedly be able to prove private necessity by a preponderance of the evidence, and a wise judge would include in the damage assessment all the consequences of defendant's trespass, including any mitigation of damages that might have resulted from the trespass. I imagine a suit by the fire extinguisher against the property owner to recover the cost of the extinguishing, with the property owner filing a counterclaim for trespass. In this situation, I think the worst possible solution the law, in its present form, could come up with is a stalemate. I do not believe the law, as it stands today, would, under these circumstances, assign any liability to the person who put out the fire.

If you know or should have known that the statute of limitations has run on a claim, you can still get dinged (by being made to pay attorneys fees and, perhaps, being sanctioned under Rule 11 or its State equivalent and labeled a vexatious attorney) for filing your claim, even though statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that the defendant has to prove by preponderance. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for other affirmative defenses. Unless there was some way you could argue that there was no necessity in the first place (e.g. the burning house is in the middle of your large desert property, miles away from the nearest property line), it would be a very bad idea to file such a trespass claim in the first place.

-Q

Edit: added bolded text. Again.

Edited by Qwertz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed they [good Samaritan laws, that is] may; I speak only of common law trespass.
Well, my initial scan indicates that those laws only provide reliefe against liability in case of acting in aid of bodily harm; I find no mention of including property damage. But I need a nap before I dig deeper into this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One addendum, keep in mind that fire fighting would likely be taken care of as part of the contract of buying a home in a development. Iows, lots of developments would require you to pay a fee for fire fighters as part of the agreement for living in the development. People usually try to seek rational arrangements for living.

Ah, yet another thing for the homeowner's association to drive us crazy about! :lol:

Kind of along these lines...what do you think of this guy...

Back in the 80s, Houston's economy was horrible due to the oil bust. Many oil and gas company employees and executives, many of whom lived in the suburbs where I was raised, were desperate to get rid of their large homes they could no longer afford, but couldn't sell because there were no buyers. They would drive out to the suburbs on their lunch break, set fire to their homes, then leave and go back to work. Well Houston was under a horrible drought that summer with soaring temperatures, so when these guys would set fire to their homes, it frequently caused surrounding homes to catch fire. In addition, volunteer firefighters were stretched thin in the suburbs during the week when many of them worked downtown or elsewhere, so the fires were just horrible all the way around.

Shortly after putting out three house fires (the result of one arson) that took a handful of volunteers all afternoon to fight, one of the homeowners, whose home had not burned, arrived home from work. He sought out my dad, the chief, and proceeded to chew him out and threaten the department with lawsuits because of the muddy mess and trampled landscaping around the fire hydrant in his yard. Not to mention the muddy mess and fire hoses drug all over his entire lawn. My dad said it was all he could do to not assault the guy. My dad explained to him very sternly that his men had been out in 100+ degree heat all day in fire gear trying to keep his home from bursting into flames and if he wanted to sue someone over his landscaping, go right ahead!

So based on what you guys are saying, you think this idiot homeowner has the right to sue? And if he has the right to sue, does that mean he should?

Let's say this guy was another struggling oil executive, and although he did not set fire to his home, perhaps he would have been happy to see his house burn to the ground and collect the insurance money. Are you saying that he could then sue the department for putting out the fire because they came onto his property when he was not home and could not give permission, and he wanted the home to burn?

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the following two provisions in the Houston Code of Ordinances:

Sec. 34-58 - Authority to command reasonable assistance

The chief of the fire department and each of his assistants and all officers thereof shall have the same police power at all fires as the police officers of the city have. Any person refusing to comply with any reasonable orders given by the chief of the fire department, or any official in the fire department, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

...

Sec. 47-28 - Right of fire department to use water facilities supplied for fire protection

In case of fire, the fire department shall have the right to use any hydrant, cistern, hose, pipe or other fixtures supplied wholly or in part from any service pipe used for fire protection.

They appear to grant firefighters authority to trespass, giving them a statutory power equivalent to an affirmative defense of public necessity. I suppose it is possible that the city could still be held liable for property damage incidental to the trespass, but the city might have a special statutory scheme set up for compensating people for damage caused by city employees acting within the scope of their authority. I know Texas (the state) and the US (the federal gov't) both have Tort Claims Acts that handle such situations. I wasn't able to find an equivalent city ordinance, though the Texas Tort Claims Act might cover it.

The issue in your example is that the fire department is a city department, and the government gets to choose if it will sustain suits against it or not, by virtue of its legislative power to do away with causes of action.

If the fire department had been a private one, it would probably be liable only for damage caused by the trespass (not for the trespass itself), because of private necessity. Such costs could easily be indemnified by the homeowner who hired the fire department to provide fire service by virtue of their contract or indemnified by the arsonist by means of a lawsuit, or covered by the fire department's own insurance.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say, property owner Jezebelle hires private fire extinguishing company A to protect her home. Company A puts out a fire on Jezebelle's neighbors' property and damages the property. If Jezebelle's neighbor decides to sue for damages, would the neighbor sue Jezebelle or Company A? And assuming Jezebelle's neighbor doesnt have coverage by a fire company, could Company A sue the neighbor for "potential damages" they could have caused, expenses for extinguishing his fire, or for putting their lives on the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Jezebelle's home one of ill repute?

The neighbor would probably file suit against Company A, because there's no indication that the neighbor knew about Jezebelle's involvement. He may learn of it later and join her as an additional defendant. However, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on, because neither Company A nor Jezebelle started the fire in the neighbor's house. Jezebelle would say that any liability on her part will be indemnified under her contract with Company A, and Company A will argue private necessity and be held liable only for actual, measurable property damage. Mucking up the daisies isn't likely to be worth much in court where the daisies are in front of a burned-out house. The neighbor would probably pay more in court costs and attorney's fees than he would get back.

Company A could not sue the neighbor, but Jezebelle might be able to under a negligence theory. Neighbor had a duty not to let his house burn so fiercely that it endangered Jezebelle's Bordello, and breached this duty by failing to have adequate fire service coverage. Neighbor's failure to have fire service was the proximate cause of Jezebelle's injury: to wit, any additional fees she had to pay to Company A to have Company A put out a fire on a property it wasn't contracted to protect. Posing a threat of destruction to your neighbor's cathouse is well within the scope of the risk of not having adequate fire prevention and suppression measures. The costs of extinguishing the neighbor's fire are contractually placed on Jezebelle, and a negligence action is the mechanism by which she can shift her contractual liability to Company A to the responsible party, neighbor. She might have agreed with Company A to allow Company A to subrogate her claim; that is, to litigate her negligence claim on her behalf and for their own benefit, in which case you might see Company A v. Neighbor, but it's a two step process through Jezebelle, not a direct action by Company A against neighbor. It's well-established contract law that you cannot demand payment for a service that the other party never agreed to accept.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
I need to dig into Good Samaritan laws which I thought relieve a person of liability for such damages, but maybe that's how it was packaged and not how it works.

That is the way I understood it too, at least I think that is the case in England - however this interpretation only applies in "common-law" legal systems (principally anglo-saxon nations). Under common-law, GS laws and precedent prevent someone being sued for wrongdoing if they were helping someone in distress, i.e. you don't get sued for trespass for getting someone out of a burning building, or sued for causing injury if your attempt to revive them broke a rib. however, a judge would determine what was reasonable and proportionate - if you smashed through the window when the door was open, you'd still have to pay for the damage.

This is contrasted against civil law countries (europe) where there is an actual "duty to rescue" whereby you can be criminally prosecuted if you don't help someone in need. Scary and evil. The only limit on this duty, is that you are not supposed to put your own life in danger, so there is no requirement that you go into a burning building (aren't they reasonable?!).

Edited by rebelconservative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...