Keeping It Safe Robert Tutterow
The topic of liability drew my attention in a somewhat strange way recently. I was involved in a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Technical Committee’s Task Group working on developing job requirements for a department’s personal protective equipment (PPE) manager and PPE technician.
The premise is that a department’s PPE manager is responsible for the overall PPE program, whereas the PPE technician is more or less the person who does the “hands-on” cleaning, drying, inspection, and repair of the PPE. In smaller departments, this person could be one and the same.
Public inputs into the next revision of NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, soon to be NFPA 1850, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural and Proximity Firefighting and Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), with the standards consolidation, raised a few liability concerns among those who read the inputs. Primarily, the concern was that this was too much responsibility—i.e., liability—to put on one person or persons, as the case may be. What? A multitude of “but, what abouts?” entered my mind. What about the current liability of the person who does this? What about the liability of the department’s SCBA technician? What about the liability of the department’s health and safety officer? What about the liability of the department’s incident safety officer? What about the liability of the driver/operator? What about the liability of the incident commander? What about the liability of the company officer? What about the liability of the chief officer? And, there are many more “but, what abouts?” that can be added to this list.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that suggests liability is a deterrent in getting firefighters to take on these roles. The organization is typically held liable in cases of extreme negligence. Granted, anyone can sue anybody for anything. Are there any jobs in any field where the employee has absolute zero chance of being held liable for an action or inaction? A Walmart greeter can be held liable for something—I am sure the firehouse lawyers can come up with something. Clearly, life safety roles carry an inherent risk that is higher than most other roles. But is that not what we all signed up for? Even civilian employees and those in support roles are in a somewhat similar situation.
Going back to the PPE manager and PPE technician, the concern expressed was, what if a firefighter gets burned or otherwise injured and there was an issue with the PPE being worn? Is the PPE manager/technician liable? Absolutely not, if the care and maintenance of the PPE were performed as they should be. If firefighters get burned because they were in an environment where the limitations of the PPE were exceeded, who is liable?
The PPE manager and technician responsibilities are not new to fire departments. For several years, NFPA 1851 has stated what the organization’s responsibilities are in maintaining PPE. The recent public inputs and subsequent public comments simply state (if adopted) that the organization should have a person or persons educated and trained to manage the overall PPE program and conduct the necessary tasks required to ensure the PPE is properly maintained. This means all aspects of the program including educating the membership about the PPE (especially its limitations), selection, sizing, cleaning, inspecting, repairing, storing, retiring, and disposal. This person or persons should be involved i