Dislodged Hose Dragged By Engine Strikes Massachusetts Man: The Need For Hose Restraints

A Revere, Massachusetts man was injured last Friday when he was struck by hose that had dislodged and was being dragged by a passing engine company. The video below shows the man being struck. While not a legal issue per se (yet anyway) – much of the law is directed at redressing accidents and injuries. There are so many parallels between the law of negligence and safety that we need to discuss this case to hopefully get the word out.

The Revere case sounds eerily familiar to the case that occurred in Cambridge, Massachusetts on January 26, 2010 when Gertrude King, 82, of Somerville, was struck and killed by a fire hose that dislodged from a passing engine company. In both the Revere and Cambridge cases, the hoses were attack handlines that came from crosslays (Mattydales).

These two cases are similar to yet another case, this one from Pennsylvania. On August 19, 2004, 10 year old Erin Schmidt was struck and killed by a hose being dragged by an engine from the Coraopolis Volunteer Fire Department. That hose was an attack hoseline that came from a crosslay.

Following the Coraopolis incident, the NFPA required all new apparatus to be delivered with devices to restrain hose in the hose bed. At present, there is no requirement that older trucks be retrofitted. Of great concern to me is the fact that many fire departments (and firefighters) are removing the restraint devices from newer apparatus because firefighters find them to be “inconvenient”.

Probably like many of you, I have heard the rationalizations that firefighters are prone to give for defeating safety features like hose restraints. “How could hose possibly come out of there”. “They must not have packed it right”. “Its never happened to any fire department around here”. “I always check my mirrors”. Firefighters being firefighters.

However, what should be clear is we have a problem with crosslays. The Cambridge and Revere cases demonstrate that Coraopolis was not a fluke. A quick check of the Near Miss Database shows several additional cases have occurred. The NFPA technical committee for apparatus or perhaps occupational safety and health committee may be moved to make the restraint requirement retroactive.

Rather than make an impassioned plea for firefighters to “do the right thing”, let me simply offer some free legal advice: If a truck comes in with a safety feature, live with it. If some genius decides to remove it, and someone is killed – the genius may very well be facing criminal manslaughter or negligent homicide charges. While he is sitting in jail one of the few highlights of his stay will be getting to take a “field trip” to court for the inevitable civil liability trial. The Coraopolis case settled for roughly $5 million after several years of wrangling. When the genius gets out of prison (2 to 15 years later), he can start paying off the portion of the judgment that was not covered by insurance.

“Do the right thing”. And let’s get the word out about hose restraints.