By Carl J. Haddon
A piece of your fire department’s apparatus is rolling down the highway en route to an emergency call. It’s a rainy early Fall day. The older rig you’re riding in is in good shape for its age, all of the firefighters are in their turnouts and are wearing their seat belts. Apparatus tires are in good shape and have plenty of tread. Everything on the truck seems to be in good working order. The truck is loaded “heavy” with equipment, as rural apparatus often have to do the work of truck and engine and rescue, which requires them to carry more equipment—I’m certain that the phrase “multivocational apparatus” started in the rural fire service. Something happens that causes the rig to be involved in an accident that appears (at first blush) not to be the fault of the apparatus operator or the rural fire department. The opposing attorney sees things differently when the case goes to court.
During the discovery phase of the case, it is revealed that at the time of the accident, the tires on the fire truck were 17 years old and way past their expiration date. It was also revealed that because of the nature of this rural fire truck’s scope of usage, it was loaded with equipment to the point that the weight of the load exceeded the vehicle’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) by 2,500 pounds. The opposing attorney uses this information to successfully prove that these factors led to the apparatus not being able to stop in the accepted amount of time and distance, thereby striking another vehicle and causing bodily injury. The fire department is found liable.
Another rural fire department responds to a call for a routine vehicle fire on the highway. As in the previous scenario, the crew is geared up and doing everything according to policy and procedure. The crew opens up the hoseline on the car fire and is met with an explosion from burning magnesium and titanium components inside the car. Although fully outfitted in proper personal protective equipment (PPE), one of the volunteer firefighters is burned by molten metal that burned through his turnout gear. “The powers that be” conduct an investigation into the matter and determine that although in good shape, this firefighters turnout gear is well beyond the manufacturer’s NFPA expiration date. A risk management nightmare ensues.
These are two simple examples of “forest through the trees” situations faced by many rural fire departments today. At this very moment, I could drive you to a half dozen firehouses not far from here that have overloaded trucks with 20-year-old tires on the apparatus. It is so common it would blow your mind. Before you beat me up at the implication, I get it. Not every rural department can afford to replace apparatus tires every five to seven years (and yes, tires have expiration dates). Nor can every rural department afford to buy new turnouts for all of the firefighters every 10 years, per NFPA. My 10 years as a fire commissioner taught me more than I wanted to know about these very real struggles. It also taught me that I didn’t have to eat the (financial) elephant all in one bite. At that time, replacing one truck’s worth of tires each year was about the best I could hope and budget for. The same thing held true for the firefighters’ turnout gear. I learned that I had to amortize the replacement of gear into manageable numbers. I didn’t have to, nor could I, replace them all at once.
The issue of trucks being overloaded to the point of exceeding the vehicle’s GVWR is a risk that can