ISU_Cyclone
Member
Squad-6 said:He should have yielded to the red light regardless. It states he did not know what the call was so it was a "unknown type emergency" call as my dispatch calls it. That alone tells me do not take any risk like running a red light.
CHIEFOPS said:And as far as I can see, this ruling had nothing to do with the presence or absence of a siren
mjMIff said:Well it does a little bit. If he had one, there wouldn't had been a case. Because he didn't, they argued for scope of work which the court agreed and then limited the claims against him. Keep in mind this doesn't become case law for everyone, but the opinions could be cited in future cases.
I find it interesting that WI has immunity against civil suit, in MI I know we have it outside of negligence for criminal charges, but not civil recourse. I am going to look into it but if someone else knows anything, speak up!
And to the fella who thought 100k was high, this was just related to the medical bills, I imagine tort in WI could include damages for loss of wages, loss of function, emotional, physical trama, post-op care, etc.. I don't know anything about this accident but running a red light sounds like a sudden stop accident which in my experience tend to be the worse...
ISU_Cyclone said:My personal knowledge of this department is that they are allowed red lights only as "courtesy lights". No sirens allowed per policy, even though state statute allows it.
This case wasn't debating whether the VFF was right or wrong, but whether he can be sued as an individual. Apparently, no siren equals no immunity from civil suits. This FD should either eliminate POV warning lights all together or allow sirens so their members aren't on the hook in case of a collision.