Law Court – No Liability for ‘Negligent’ Firefighting

Training for: Legal Notes

For the first time we know of, the Maine Supreme Court has held that municipalities cannot be held liable for allegedly negligent firefighting operations.

In Day’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016 ME 121, the plaintiff, whose shop was destroyed by a fire, claimed the town’s fire department improperly deployed and operated its trucks and equipment in a manner that exacerbated his loss. This, he argued, fell within the plain meaning of the exception to immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) for negligent ownership, maintenance or use of motor vehicles, machinery and equipment (see 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(1)).

The Court, however, noted that this particular exception to immunity under the MTCA has long been construed to include only risks that flow naturally or directly from the negligent operation of a vehicle (i.e., the possibility of collision and resulting harm). In this case, though, the Court found that the essence of the complaint was that the town “made imprudent tactical decisions” in fighting the fire, not that the plaintiff was injured in a vehicle accident. The Court was thus unwilling to make an exception just because vehicles and equipment were involved.

Incidentally, in 2002 the Law Court reached a similar decision involving emergency rescue operations. In Thompson v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 2002 ME 78, 796 A.2d 674, a snowmobiler hurt in an accident claimed his injuries were exacerbated by a delayed rescue due to an inadequately fueled helicopter and inadequate communications and navigation equipment. The Court refused to allow an exception under the MTCA because the complaint was essentially for a botched rescue, not for injuries sustained by contact with a vehicle or other equipment. (The Thompson holding is applicable to municipalities because the MTCA applies to all governmental entities, including municipalities.) For details, see “State, County Not Liable for Negligent Rescue or High-Speed Chase,” Maine Townsman, Legal Notes, June 2002. (By R.P.F.)

For the first time we know of, the Maine Supreme Court has held that municipalities cannot be held liable for allegedly negligent firefighting operations.

In Day’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016 ME 121, the plaintiff, whose shop was destroyed by a fire, claimed the town’s fire department improperly deployed and operated its trucks and equipment in a manner that exacerbated his loss. This, he argued, fell within the plain meaning of the exception to immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) for negligent ownership, maintenance or use of motor vehicles, machinery and equipment (see 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(1)).

The Court, however, noted that this particular exception to immunity under the MTCA has long been construed to include only risks that flow naturally or directly from the negligent operation of a vehicle (i.e., the possibility of collision and resulting harm). In this case, though, the Court found that the essence of the complaint was that the town “made imprudent tactical decisions” in fighting the fire, not that the plaintiff was injured in a vehicle accident. The Court was thus unwilling to make an exception just because vehicles and equipment were involved.

Incidentally, in 2002 the Law Court reached a similar decision involving emergency rescue operations. In Thompson v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 2002 ME 78, 796 A.2d 674, a snowmobiler hurt in an accident claimed his injuries were exacerbated by a delayed rescue due to an inadequately fueled helicopter and inadequate communications and navigation equipment. The Court refused to allow an exception under the MTCA because the complaint was essentially for a botched rescue, not for injuries sustained by contact with a vehicle or other equipment. (The Thompson holding is applicable to municipalities because the MTCA applies to all governmental entities, including municipalities.) For details, see “State, County Not Liable for Negligent Rescue or High-Speed Chase,” Maine Townsman, Legal Notes, June 2002. (By R.P.F.)