1st suit filed in deadly fire

Boosterhose (anonymous) says...

Probably the first of many lawsuits. No doubt I bebieve if the city fails in it's appeal taxpayers will hold the bill for the administrations inadequacies.

October 2, 2007 at 4:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mmeemz (anonymous) says...

I agree - the first of many to come. I'm curious to know why the city or the fd was not named in the suit. I sincerely hope that it isn't politial.

October 2, 2007 at 5:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

poorboy (anonymous) says...

It sounds like the lawyers bringing suit are in bed with the city and FD. Why wouldn't they include them in this lawsuit?
But yes this is the first of many to come I'm sure.

October 2, 2007 at 6:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

grayhead (anonymous) says...

They may be barred by law from suing their employer. But any family that files suit should not be given any of the donated funds, and the greedy lawyers involved are beneath contempt.

October 2, 2007 at 6:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wonderdog (anonymous) says...

An employee cannot sue his employer in civil court if he has collected workers compensation benefits as a result of the same incident.

October 2, 2007 at 6:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mac0cm4 (anonymous) says...

I am certain Mr. Champaign would be proud that his death has brought the greed out in his family. (sarcasm here)

Suing the furniture manufacturers is ridiculous. What's next, suing gasoline manufacturers for an explosive product? Find me a sofa whose tag doesn't already state on it 'keep away from flame.' Oh, look at the law firm... Motley Rice. Go figure.

October 2, 2007 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

granny2 (anonymous) says...

Sounds like a Million is not enough money for the whole family to live on without working for the rest of their lives. If my house burns up, I guess I will sue the builder, everyone that made my furniture,and everyone that made the materials that went into building it. Please, when are these crazy law suits going to stop.

October 2, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

Grayhead - Is that really why you think people donated money to the charities on behalf of the firemen? Do you really think that anyone was giving their money with the expectation that the firemen would agree not to sue those people who might be at fault in return?

And what is your beef with lawyers? When someone dies, his family is perfectly correct to ask whether another person was responsible. That is what a lawsuit does; it tests whether another party did something unreasonable (i.e., negligent) which contributed to the injuries. If these suits have no merit, then fine - they will be dismissed early on. If they do have merit, then why should these families be prevented from suing? Are you on the payroll of the Sofa Super Store or something? Why rush to the defense of the people who installed defective fire control devices and attack those who are challenging their actions?

And Granny2 - Just how much would you value a member of your family? If someone offered a million dollars to kill your child, I gather you would accept, right?

October 2, 2007 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

greener1 (anonymous) says...

GREED GREED GREED-The family doesn't deserve anything in my opinion from this point forward. Everybody is owed something these days. HOW much money have they already received? Ridiculous people.

October 2, 2007 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SamKentov (anonymous) says...

Well, I guess when the state and local government will not look out for the firefighter community, they have to take justice into their own hands. If fear of losing everything in a wrongful-death lawsuit is what motivates people into doing what is right, so be it.

October 2, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

Greener1 - How much would you want to be paid before someone could kill your dad?

October 2, 2007 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iloveohiointhesummer (anonymous) says...

Jeeze, no big surprise this was coming with all the greedy trial lawyers in this town...

Reader, who are you representing?

October 2, 2007 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

leblackw (anonymous) says...

Cheers, Reader!

I didn't realize philanthropic donations had fine print at the bottom: If you agree to take this money I reserve the right to judge you if you seek additional means of reimbursement.

Guess I they strategically left out that section in my copy of the BE A DECENT HUMAN BEING handbook.

I hope that those of you who are against the families taking legal action that they are constitutionally entitled to did not donate ANY money to this cause. You obviously wouldn't have given it for the right reasons.

October 2, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

greener1 (anonymous) says...

Well lets see smartass (reader). They made about 30k a year....shut up moron. The people are sick suing for someone that died doing their JOB! While they didn't deserve to lose a family member, they sure as heck don't deserve millions of dollars because of it. should every serviceman's family sue the government for wrongful death when they die in the war, kinda the same situation right?

October 2, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ln1959 (anonymous) says...

Suing, Okay, I can see where the family feels they have that right, but those guys where public servants and if thats the case, all families with children in the Arm Forces should have that right to sue also, don't you think. Should we sue Iraq for all the children that have died, or the president, maybe Dick Chaney should be in that to. There is pain and hurt, and yes the Furniture store should bear some responsibilities, but they knew the danger of the job.

October 2, 2007 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jifdeng3 (anonymous) says...

Im interested to see how the firemans rule is going to play into this lawsuit. I find it ludacris that this family is suing the manufacturers of the equipment and the furniture. As a firefighter I have accepted the possibility of death in my line of work. It will always be there. However, I have to wonder why the City and Rusty Thomas is not being targeted by this lawsuit for neglegence for willfully disregarding current firefighting practices and NFPA. Or how about the City for not making sure that those electrical and building codes were enforced. It was the owners respnsibility to make sure his fire doors worked, not the manufacturer. Why sue them? "The flames ignited the highly flammable polyurethane foam, creating a "toxic, ultra-hazardous" environment for Champaign and the other firefighters inside, the suit states." Ummm, Yeah its a FIRE. The same cushy sofas that this family is sitting on in the lawyers office are the culprit, throw them out and get a wooden bench, without stain or laquor because its burns cleaner. COME ON people. If you are going to sue someone, sue the correct people, and if change is truely you goal, then target people who can make that change. Lobby the mayors office, fight for regime change. Or is that not the case, is it change or dollar signs that are desired. Thats what I thought too. In closing...Firefighting will always be a dangerous profession, and one that will continue to carry with it great risk. It is impossible to make every building, or every product 100% safe. Is is, however possible to equip firefighters with the latest and most up to date equipment, gear, apparatus and technique which the City failed to do. Lets go after that problem and something good might come out of this then just a lot of money changing hands......

October 2, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

Okay, so let's assume that most firemen work for twenty years and that the average fireman is in the middle of his career. Are you saying that someone should be given free leave to kill firemen for $300,000? Oh, I suppose you would also want to take out the taxes and things like that. Let's just put the price of $100,000 on each fireman and call it a deal, okay?

My question remains: How much SHOULD a person get for the death of a family member? You obviously think that each of his three children should receive about $300,000 from the charitable fund. I would simply value human life more than that.

And also, no one is saying that they deserve extra pay for having done their jobs. Dying was not part of their jobs any more than dying in a car crash with a drunk driver is part of the job of a taxi driver. Think a little, okay? They are suing because of the alleged negligence which caused deaths which otherwise would not have happened.

And lastly, that same point explains why soldiers do not get to sue the government for war injuries. In many cases, soldiers are not injured because of negligence. Not every injury is the result of negligence after all. Perhaps these will fit into that category, but perhaps not.

October 2, 2007 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RTC (anonymous) says...

People need to realize that when huge firms like Motely Rice are representing plaintiffs that the sum that the family usually ends up getting is not that large.
It is the same as when the pharmaceutical companies are sued for drugs that have caused injury or death.
There are so many players in a huge law firm that by the time every person involved in all of the footwork gets their share there is not usually a whole lot left for the families involved.
It is just the way the system works.

October 2, 2007 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iloveohiointhesummer (anonymous) says...

I thought trial lawyers vowed to never venerate that handbook, BE A DECENT HUMAN BEING. I do understand however, that are all issued "BOTTOM FEEDING FOR DUMMIES".

Burn the money tree.

October 2, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jifdeng3 (anonymous) says...

Ok reader, I like to debate. Its fun. First, there is no price you can put on a human life. No matter what number you come up with it will never replace that person. My question is where do you come up with this $300,000 dollar number? And who killed these men? The owner of sss? The city? The furniture MFGS? Master lock company? The hose MFGS? The fire apparatus company? Who? I really am not seeing you point. If you say that those responsible are being sued then why is The City of Charleston not on the lawsuit? I have not heard about any fines the SSS recieved for not being up to code. So doesnt that make the City responsible too? Or how about Rusty's cavileer attitude to nationally recognised standards for firefighters? Shouldn't he and the department be responsible too? Guess what, they are not on the lawsuit either. Why?????

You are right, dying is not part of a firefighters job, but there is that risk. Using your example, taxi drivers do not intentionally place themselves into a hazaredous environment, but we do. That has to be accepted. Look up the firemans rule. It was created for a reason. None of the people involved wanted 9 men to die. I can assure you that. The willful disregard that I see on the part of the City of Charleston is not addressed. Once again, why are they not named? Fire codes? NFPA?

We live in a society where we cannot accept our own fault. We sue clothing mfgs for using flammable materals even though we get drunk and catch them on fire by playing with a lighter, we sue tire companies for wrecks even though we don't maintain the tire properly, and we sue furniture mfgs even though they have nothing to do with the circumstances behind the firefighters deaths. There is no personal accountability in todays society. As I said before sue the city and the fd for their neglagence in performing their jobs but not people that have nothing to do with the situation just because their pockets are deeper. That is, if the familys and lawers are interested in change, but I seriously doubt that.

October 2, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

chsn_bubba (anonymous) says...

1. Reader who are you representing.... interesting choice of words: "kill" implies an intentional act, not an accidental occurrence (exactly what this fire was), a word that lawyers would try to convince a jury the sofa store did in their actions to the firemen.. hmmmm
2. They accepted the risk of their jobs and what that entailed (entering buildings that had unknown setups/contents etc.)... had they all simultaneously had heart attacks on the job how much would they get and who would they sue then? It's greed. period. And in the end we all will pay.
It's regrettable, the public has mourned and given to the fallen.. how much more will have to be given until closure?

October 2, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

grayhead (anonymous) says...

What I have against SOME lawyers is that they use the emotional situation we have here and, thinking only of what they will profit from it, distort facts and smear those who did nothing negligent or illegal, to get money paid.I haven't read that the lawyers are cutting their fee percentage to increase the return to their clients. The facts are the building code did not require sprinklers in the building; the "dock" was built over in period of time, and no permit was required at any point in time;the building was routinely inspected by the fire department (as late as the end of March/first part of April) no it was no mystery to them; fiefighting is an inherently dangerous job, one into which you are not drafted. Thank God there are those willing to take the risks to protect the rest of us; the manufacturerers provide a product that is approved by the responsibile government agencies, so how are they negligent, grossly or otherwise?
Donations were made through the tears of a grateful public. I doubt any donation was made with the expectation that it would stop anyone from suing, but with the realization that death in the line of duty isn't always compensated enough.But it is set in law.
Finally, I doubt anyone outside of immediate family and friends feels any worse about what happened than the business owner. Now he has to defend himself and his family's livihood from the coming smear campaign.
Sad.

October 2, 2007 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

musc1e (anonymous) says...

I certainly feel for the families who lost a loved one in the fire, but if this is not about money, will the profits from this lawsuit go to charity? or will the children and wives of the fallen 9 profit on top of the what they received in donations from communities all over the country?

October 2, 2007 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iloveohiointhesummer (anonymous) says...

musc1e. This is all about money!! The majority of the settlement will go those cavaliers of justice, the trial lawyers. They don't work for free man, and those houses in I'on are a little fancier than those owned by most common folk(firefighters) and require more upkeep and more german cars in their garages.

October 2, 2007 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

granny2 (anonymous) says...

Reader, are one of the Cousin's that is going to profit from the law suit?

October 2, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kaylee (anonymous) says...

Everything has turned into lawsuits. The communities gave from the heart to these people to help them out not to take care of them for the rest of there life. Nothing can replace a life, a father,brother, husband, & ect. But there is a time for thank you , sorrow, and getting on with life. Greed should not be a part of this. These men knew how the rules of a fire fighter & they did wrong also. They did not prepare there selfs for this fire.The survivors learned from this. What about all the men in the war that are dying, coming home disabled for the rest of there lifes. Who is going to handle there lawsuits, how many will there be. I have lost a brother, uncle, brother inlaw & son inlaw in wars,& accidents. I lost and uncle in 9-11. When lawyers got done with that the money my aunt received was a joke. She has 2 children she was raising alone & working 2 jobs until about a year ago. She just got married. You have to make life go on.

October 2, 2007 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justtryin2survive (anonymous) says...

jifdeng3 I back your statements 110% May god bless y'all who fight the fires.

October 2, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mustang (anonymous) says...

Reader you say and I quote " They are suing because of the alleged negligence which caused deaths which otherwise would not have happened " OK two major falts in your statement. The first is how do you know these brave men would be alive today? I believe that no one life is taken before thier time. When life is terminated early through accidents like this one. We need to stop and think about what went wrong at all levels. Perhaps it is time to spend some of our hard earned tax dollars on positive changes (more building inspectors, advanced training and equipment for our cival servants) and less on salaries for people who lost touch with the real world decades ago. Second do you honestly feel that the city and fire department are not the least bit responsible. OSHA does not share that opinion. I bet we will see that many other investigative bodies will not see it that way either.

October 2, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wormmyswife1 (anonymous) says...

I haven't read all of the comments nor do I care to. This is all about money and it is sickening. One comment that stuck out and made me stop reading to type was the one that said something about how much should a family get when a loved on dies? My profession is not physicially dangerous but when I got married and when I had children, it then became MY responsibility to make sure they were taken care of if something were to happen to me at work, at the house, in the car- where ever! I have enough life insurance that will help my husband pay off all of our debt and get back on his feet plus put away some for the kids to go to college. No they won't get a "free ride" for the rest of their lives but who says they are supposed to? Death is a part of life and I don't think that anyone should profit so much from death that they won't have to live life just like the rest of us. Please don't say that the fireman only make about $30,000.00 a year and can't afford life insurance. I only make about $25K a year and I have made life insurance affordable!

October 2, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mustang (anonymous) says...

It is time to stop suing for the sake of suing. Why not use all the money and time spent on needless lawsuits for the good of all not the new Porsche for the few.

October 2, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justtryin2survive (anonymous) says...

why not go through with this lawsuit? Just to see who truly is responsible. Any monies received should go directly to the fire department for the equipment they should have been using in the first place. And ofcourse let the lawfirm do it for the "sake of the community" Let the families have the donations. Lets see if this is not about greed.

October 2, 2007 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

unknown_username (anonymous) says...

Right-O, Mustang. While a monetary value could never be assigned to human life, no amount of money will resurrect the dead either. Will millions of dollars keep you warm at night, father your children, or fill the void in the family photograph? No. Money cannot do what humans can.

Why not allocate the money rewarded to the families and the lawyers' commissions to fund a burn center at MUSC? We lost that unit years ago and must transport burn patients to Augusta, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Charlotte, etc. potentially losing precious moments and lives in the process.

Judging by the size the MR building at the base of the bridge and the pending payouts from other suits, I don't think the firm is hurting for income. Also, Mr. Motley, being a North Charleston native, wouldn't you love the opportunity to give back to your community in such a fashion?

Millions have been donated to the families thus far and, if invested properly, should be sufficient for them to continue living in the same manner to which they have been accustomed. I know the nine would love to see their families improve their stations, but wouldn't they also have loved to leave a more lasting legacy in a broader sense?

Why not leave a legacy behind that allows these firefighters to save lives for generations to come? Don't you think they'd love that opportunity? Don't you think they'd give anything to continue fighting fire and saving lives? If you think they would, then let them. Honor them this way. Honor them by saving lives. Remember these were good men, the best men anyone could hope to know, and they were devoted to their community. Don't blemish their legacy with entitlement, greed, and envy.

Only generosity and selfless service of this magnitude in the face of such tragedy could redeem our overly litigious society.

October 2, 2007 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

saxyguitarist (anonymous) says...

I believe it is pretty pathetic that they would go to the extent of suing the manufacturers of the sofas and other furniture. Firefighting is a dangerous profession. Being a firefighter myself, I can testify to that. The manufacturers of the sofa had nothing to do with a sofa. So I guess the next house fire I go to, I am going to tell the homeowners to sue the makers of their appliances just because they created toxic smoke after their appliances were burnt up. Oh yeah, please don't forget to sue the furniture company also because they started the fire(sarcasm). This is a greedy family trying to get more money. It is pretty darn pathetic that someone would stoop that low. WAY TO GO FAMILY!!

October 2, 2007 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SomeTruthPlease (anonymous) says...

LUDICROUS. I wanted to correct one of the posts that spelled it "Ludacris"...I absolutely despise the new Urban plays-on-words that have taught even our responsible adults how to misspell! As for the lawsuit, I saw that one coming. Long ago. If you're guilty of murder, you get Andy Savage. If you're suing for millions, you get Ron Motley. That's just the way things happen here. I, too, question the omission of the city and the F.D. from the named defendants. Especially in the light of naming the furniture manufacturers from making furniture out of foam! I can't wait until all of our furniture is made from pine, uncushioned, and we'll have to thank Mr. Champaign, a loving cousin, who loved his cousin so dearly as to run to the Motley Rice law firm with his tales of grief and woe, and I'll be the first to invite him over to eat sitting at my new dining set made from recycled cardboard.

October 2, 2007 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Reader (anonymous) says...

JIFDengIII said: "My question is where do you come up with this $300,000 dollar number?" Answer: That is about the amount per family donated by people, divided amongst his three children.

And this: "And who killed these men? The owner of sss? The city? . . . The fire apparatus company? Who?" Answer: That is what this lawsuit will decide. Did the person who installed a defective fire safety door bear responsbility for their deaths? That is what a jury of normal people will decide. Maybe some of these people did nothing unreasonable. Maybe some did.

And this: "If you say that those responsible are being sued then why is The City of Charleston not on the lawsuit?" Answer: I think other posters are correct when they speculate that the City is not being sued because there is a statute which insulates the employer from liability if the employee accepts workers' comp benefits.

And this: "You are right, dying is not part of a firefighters job, but there is that risk. Using your example, taxi drivers do not intentionally place themselves into a hazardous environment, but we do. That has to be accepted. Look up the firemans rule. It was created for a reason." Answer: Agreed. No one wanted to die, but no one planned on it either. The whole question is whether something was done that a reasonable person would have done to prevent this. South Carolina unambiguously has said that we do not follow the Fireman's Rule specifically so that firemen who are injured have the same rights as taxi drivers, airline pilots, doctors, and other people who unnecessarily die in the pursuit of their trades through negligence of others.

And this: "We live in a society where we cannot accept our own fault. . . . [W]e sue tire companies for wrecks even though we don't maintain the tire properly, and we sue furniture mfgs even though they have nothing to do with the circumstances behind the firefighters deaths. There is no personal accountability in todays society." Answer: Tales of unjust jury verdicts are wildly overplayed. Sure, there are some bad outcomes, but most of these scenarios you have described do NOT result in big verdicts.

Mustang said: "[H]ow do you know these brave men would be alive today? I believe that no one life is taken before thier time." Answer: I don't know they wouldn't have died the next day. But if we all bought into that sort of fatalist position, no one would ever recover for anything. I could shoot my neighbor and simply shrug and say, "Maybe it was his time to go."

And this: "Second do you honestly feel that the city and fire department are not the least bit responsible. OSHA does not share that opinion." Answer: I suspect that the City is at fault, but, as said above, I think there are legal obstacles to pursuing that remedy.

October 2, 2007 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jifdeng3 (anonymous) says...

Reader, I seriously doubt that this will ever see a jury trial, which is the reason lawsuits like these are filed. Most companies do not want to be drug into a long litigation. This is what the lawyers and plantifs hope for. This is easy money. I would love to see it go to trial.

You say "The whole question is whether something was done that a reasonable person would have done to prevent this" Then lets look squarley at the command staff at CFD. OSHA listed the willful violation of accepted command practices. That rests right on Rustys shoulders not a furniture maker or a door installer.

Last, Could you point me to a reference where SC does not follows the firemans rule. Im curious about that.

October 2, 2007 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mustang (anonymous) says...

Reader Thank you for clarifying your statement. I understand that there are reasons that the city and F.D. are not listed as of yet, but I also believe that this is not a fact finding lawsuit. It is based on a group of money hungry people that prey on victims of any high profile accident or perhaps those that are to ignorant to realize that smoking causes multiple health risks. I feel that with all the investigators from all possible angles, the faults will all be told. No lawyers needed

October 2, 2007 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SCgal (anonymous) says...

A lawsuit on behalf of an employee that was doing their chosen profession.........

Well I guess a football player will sue for being tackled.......

A cook will sue for being popped with grease.........

A policeman will sue for dealing with a bad guy........

A nurse will sue for catching a bad disease......

A painter will sue for inhaling paint fumes.........

The sewer guy will sue for smelling odors...........

Who and what is next?

October 2, 2007 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

papabear (anonymous) says...

Fact finding lawsuit? No

Greed? Absolutely

Forget about filling the garage at the houses in ION with German cars. Mr. Motley has a toy called Themis at the City Marina. Themis is a 156' yacht that holds 18,750 gallons of fuel. With marina diesel prices around $3.50 per gallon or more, if you do the math, you can figure that one tank of fuel is worth about as much as a Porsche.

October 2, 2007 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Reader - And what is your beef with lawyers?

http://professionalism.law.sc.edu/dow...
MARCH 31, 2006, DRAFT
BEST PRACTICES FOR LEGAL EDUCATION

Page 5:
2. Law Schools Cannot Fully Prepare Students For Practice And The Licensing Process Is Not Protecting The Public. :

Page 20:
c. Law Schools Should Attend to the Well-Being of Their Students.
It is well-known that lawyers suffer higher rates of depression, anxiety and other mental illness, suicide, divorce, alcoholism and drug abuse, and poor physical health than the general population or other occupations.49 : It is less well-known that these problems begin in law school. Although law students enter law school healthier and happier than other students, they leave law school in much worse shape. "It is clear that law students become candidates for emotional dysfunction immediately upon entry into law school and face continued risks throughout law school and subsequent practice."51

AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TO BE TRUSTED TO SELF-REGULATE THEIR PROFESSION UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.

I trust your question is answered, at least in part.

October 2, 2007 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FIRSTDUE (anonymous) says...

This lawsuit is a legal method to pull the city fd and city of charleston into the suit by forcing 13 defendents to prove it wasn't thier fault these men died it was thier employers. Workmens compensation insurance protects employers from lawsuits over death and injury but a third party can bring them in to defend themselves without any law being challenged. Basically the Motley/Rice law firm will make the Super Sofa Store prove their real case against the city of Charleston who will pay alot to settle the case and not have it tried (could be embarrassing). The issue of workmens comp wouldn't come up until after a jury verdict and award was announced and then it might still stick if gross negligence was proved. If you think they left the city of Charleston out of this think again.

October 2, 2007 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

havesense (anonymous) says...

Wow, a lot of good points in these comments!! SCgal - c'mon "dying/burning to death" is not in the freakin job description of a firemen!! There were mistakes made - it's called negligence & someone has to pay for it (lawsuit) to make sure it doesn't happen again!! Why don't people understand that the more fierce the punishment - the less likely for it to happen again!

Now, to sue the manufacturer is just plain stupid - they didn't start the fire or even ever say there couches would put fires out - I don't get that???

That's like suing farmers because you got fat & died eating french fries where their potatoes came from!!

October 2, 2007 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

southbel (anonymous) says...

I really think this lawsuit is justified except for the one point of suing the manufacturers of the sofas. That's the one point that is hard to swallow. Other than that, I agree with the lawsuit. The Sofa Super Store, in particular, with the padlocked locked fire door, etc. has plenty to answer for in this suit.

It would definitely make other businesses think long and hard about making sure they are following fire safety regulations so this won't happen to them in the future and could possibly prevent another tragedy. Although, the naming of the sofa manufacturers in the suit still bothers me though.

October 2, 2007 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

whome (anonymous) says...

a couple of points.

1. the city (and FD) generally can not be sued under sovereign immunity.

2. you sue anyone and everyone because of various indemnification clauses.

3. servicemen can't sue b/c it's statutorily barred. so if you don't want firefighters to sue, change the state law.

4. generally the fireman's rule or assumption of the risks are valid defenses, but not when the defendant is reckless or grossly negligent.

A football player will sue for being tackled...
if the coach of team told his/her players the best way to win was to tear the others ACL...

A cook will sue for being popped with grease...
was the kitchen so crowded that the cook couldn't move?

A nurse will sue for catching a bad disease...
what if the "sterile" needle had HIV?

A painter will sue for inhaling paint fumes...
the low "VOC" actually had more than the allowed limit?

The sewer guy will sue for smelling odors...
the company just released a banned toxin into the sewers to save a few bucks in disposal fees?

we don't know the truth; it's up to the jury, not us, to determine whether these parties were in fact grossly negligent. however, the OSHA violations are pretty damning.

October 2, 2007 at 11:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

charleston (anonymous) says...

FIRSTDUE, excellent points. There are many layers to this "onion". Reader, also good points. I am stunned that some commenters put these deaths in the same category as minor workplace hazards. Donations were made to the firemens' families from across the country. These donations were not predicated on the condition that those responsible should not be held accountable in a court of law. Get real.

October 3, 2007 at 2:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SCgal (anonymous) says...

And so I am sure for any incident when a firemen, police officer, or one is hurt/killed blame and fault can by laid in some manner, form, or fashion.

So how many homes and or lives will be lost due to fires because every aspect will need to be checked, reviewed before anyone enters?

It's unfortunate, it's sad, but nothing, not even MONEY will change the situation, it's a risk that is involved with the job- be it firemen, police officer, nurse, et. al.

You can bet before I jump in and donate in the future, I'll sit back and see if lawsuits develop. Perhaps, the millions of dollars donated to take care of these families should be given to the FD and let the families have their lawsuit money instead.

And how many other firemen, police officers, public servants have lost their lives and no grand public support and donation, big lawsuit/money, grand stand?

Even if the situaions were all ideal and in place to have fought this fire, could the outcome have been similar?

Yes, of course, when dealing with fire anything could happen
and everyone is aware of the risk involved.

Monday morning quarter backing does not change the situation and the desire for more money, after so many have been so generous and given so much is, well...............

October 3, 2007 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

angelab1970 (anonymous) says...

Of course the first family that sues just happens to be black. I am sure that when all of the firefighters took on their jobs they knew there was a risk they could die in a blaze or have a building collapse on them. My god can't they just let them rest in peace. If the owners set the fire intentionally then yes sue but it hasn't been proven they did set it. And why would you sue the manufacturers of the furniture, that is just plain stupid. This is crazy that when something happens the first word out of mouths is I am going to sue you. Get a life people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

October 3, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

masmith53 (anonymous) says...

When a lawsuit is filed, it is common practice for the attorneys to go after any and everyone who has some involvement...ie furniture manufacturers. Think about it this way though...if the materials used to make the sofas were not so flammable and chemically poisonous, would the outcome of the fire have been different?

October 3, 2007 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SCgal (anonymous) says...

Yeh, and hopes of a settlement and then on to the city, et. al for more money when the first case is over/settled!

October 3, 2007 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...

angelab1970: "Of course the first family that sues just happens to be black."

wow! what a way to lower the level of discourse on this panel. You should be very proud, you were the first and only individual to bring race into this discussion.

October 4, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jjmp03 (anonymous) says...

We are in Charleston, SC. Race will always be an issue. ALWAYS! :-(

October 4, 2007 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jjmp03 (anonymous) says...

Reader ~ I was getting irritated by your comments but just started laughing more towards the end.

EVERYONE can agree that no amount of money can make up for someone dying.

As far as the family getting over $900,000...this firefighter who died would not have made that in a lifetime of being a firefighter. What I mean by that is for MONETARY COMPENSATION, it will help more than what it would be if he were still here. So they are taken care of financially.

Now suing for making a point of what needs to change, that makes sense.

Why can't this all be figured out through the experts first before we jump the gun and add more attorneys and lawsuits?

This is all so sad!

October 4, 2007 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bootlicked (anonymous) says...

What is sad is nine people died. What is sad is that anyone even makes comments about what their families should do. I think that the lawsuits against the sofa makers are just a clever way that will backfire on the city. Yes they know the dangers of their job. With good training there were minimal dangers that awful evening. They know that if something goes WRONG what might happen. I know many fine men who did at least thirty years in the fire service and fought many a fire at similar buildings and I can call them right now and talk to them. I can't call none of my friends that parished that evening.

October 7, 2007 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jjmp03 (anonymous) says...

Well everyone is entitled to their own opinions. As for the guys who did die, the should be honored. This should not be treated like a massacre or a homicide. They went in doing their jobs and everyone has praised them for it.

What everyone needs to do is to let them REST IN PEACE. Learn from this situation and move forward with the right amount of training, etc.

You would think that this happens every week the way people are responding. Of course it is unfortunate that they lost their lives, but I also believe that God has a time for everyone.

Some people just need to realize that not everything is in OUR control.

October 7, 2007 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )