Judge: Charleston not part of civil lawsuit for sofa store fire
By David Slade
Previous story
Attorneys say in court that city partly to blame; Lawyers for Sofa Super Store, furniture company say Charleston should be listed as defendant, published 08/04/09
A judge has ruled that the city of Charleston will not be added as a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by the families of firefighters who died in the 2007 Sofa Super Store fire, according to an attorney for the city.
Defendants including furniture manufacturers and the Sofa Super Store sought to add the city to the case in a bid to reduce potential damage claims.
Families of the firefighters opposed adding the city to the case, because any finding that the city shared the blame for the deaths could reduce damages paid in the case, because the city is immune from paying such claims.
Circuit Judge Markley Dennis heard arguments on the issue Aug. 3.
Dennis ruled today that the city would not be added to the suit, but has not signed a written order, according to city attorney Sandra Senn.
Read more in Wednesday’s editions of The Post and Courier.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
ckdcarman (anonymous) says...
Sad to see that the only reason the family didn't include the city was financial. How about because the city and th people who live in the city did so much for the families already? No amount of money will erase their pain I'm sure. My family lost a 9 year old to an accident not her fault. We forgave.....
August 18, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MANDO (anonymous) says...
It is financial. With life insurance, raised money, and the other payout already received-- the amounts exceed what the fireperson would have received in a lifetime. Principal is one thing, greed is another.
Now for all the whiners who are going to say I don't support the fallen firefighters and I'm insensitive, you're wrong. Greed is overriding the principal of their deaths and I shame them for exploiting it.
How dare the families tarnish their loved ones good name in an attempt to get something back they unfortunately can't. How dare them.
August 18, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rocks66 (anonymous) says...
The city should be sued simply on principle. The mayor was running around in the near aftermath with that tiresome (and false) declaration that we "have the finest fire department in the country." Not. These poor guys were doing their jobs properly, but their training and equipment, as well as the department's inept leadership, led to their demise. City Hall needs to share the blame for this tragedy, if only by being named a defendant. Obviously, there was some sort of lapse in judgment or oversight on the part of the department charged with fire code inspection and enforcement. Perhaps that would inspire the powers that be to be more proactive in the future regarding the safety of folks who put their lives on the line for the rest of us.
August 18, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JC (anonymous) says...
If the fire hadn't started in the first place . . .
August 18, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sardis12 (anonymous) says...
The city should be added if only to be fair to the other defendants. If the city shares the blame, the other responsible parties should not bear the complete responsiblity for the monetary damages. Well,unless that Goldstein crook pays it all, that I wouldn't mind...
August 18, 2009 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptPete (anonymous) says...
The owners of the store should have just told the dept to just stay out and let it burn if it was going to cause this much trouble. It's sad to see so much greed.
August 18, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- Missing woman's fiance found dead in his home
- Isle of Palms wants to patch beach
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Advocating for cyclists
- Veterans Job Fair set for Feb. 22 in North Charleston
- Facebook posts may cost you a job
- Boeing powering up first local jet
- S.C. State mum on possible firings
