Wrongful Death Claim Filed Against Alameda City and County Over Memorial Day Drowning
The family of Raymond Zack who drowned himself by walking into the San Francisco Bay while Police and firefighting personnel watched, filed a civil claim against Alameda City and County stating that first responders were negligent and “breached their mandatory duty and a duty of ordinary care”. The claim is a necessary step to filing a lawsuit.
Zack, 52, was mentally ill and suicidal when he waded into the cold waters near Bay Crown Beach on May 30, 2011, Memorial Day. Dozens of onlookers, including police and firefighters, remained on the shoreline and watched for nearly an hour until Zack succumbed. His body was pulled ashore by a civilian passerby.
The firefighters were prohibited by policy from entering the water, following budget cuts that eliminated their water rescue program. Police and fire officials were waiting for the Coast Guard to arrive. The circumstances were heavily debated here in June in a number of different posts. Here’s one and here’s another.
On the whole, first responders bore the brunt of the public criticism with surprisingly little criticism of the financial aspect of the decision to eliminate the water rescue program. Following the incident City Police and Fire department launched a series of changes. An independent inquiry was ordered by the city, and the report submitted by former State Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva outlined suggestions for improved coordination between departments and training for fire and police department personnel. It is reported that 21 Alameda firefighters have undergone training as rescue swimmers and two shallow water rescue boats are in service.
A clear example of incompetense of a small fire departmnt. They have lost the respect, support and trust of their community. To standby and watch while a 20 year old female gets in the water and pulls the victim out should be embarrasing. She also didn’t have training.
In the know
You are correct that the department lost the respect, support and trust of the community, and I agree it would be a bit embarressing to be required to stand by and watch a civilian perform such a task.
There is an interesting case out of Tarrytown NY in 2010 where a firefighter was confronted with a similar situation involving a confined space. A worker had collapsed in a sewer. The firefighter could see the collapsed man who was 15 feet away from him. The firefighter was not equipped to make the rescue, nor properly trained. I take it you would expect – perhaps demand – that a firefighter under such circumstances attempt such a rescue.
The firefighter in Tarrytown died, and everyone is asking how could he have violated basic safety rules, how could his department not have done more to better equip and train its personnel.
Several issues are raised by this story. The first that occurs to me is where the spending priorities are for the department. The primary duty of any public safety agency is precisely that, “Public Safety”. Unfortunately, many times departments get seduced by “shinier, newer, flashier” toys that end up sitting unused in an engine bay because they were fashionable at the time of purchase while more practical missions are neglected. I suspect a knowledgable person walking through the department would find all sorts of shiny, unused toys that were purchased with money that could have kept the water rescue team “afloat”. Next, we are continually advised that fighting fires is a dangerous job, while being asked to expect less and less from our departments by way of response. My first Lieutenant (a twenty plus year smoke eater from the old school) said it right, “You get paid to take risks”. As Chiefs try to garner respectability by increasing educational requirements and certifications for each specific duty (each of which used to be expected of all as a course of the job) by creating “Special Response xxx Team”s, the public is served more poorly. The Fire Service used to “Solve Problems” with ingenuity, wisdom, and grit. As it has become inhabited by more highly educated but less experienced members, it has lost much of that wisdom and adaptability. Whereas a “fireman” used to look at a problem and try to figure out a way to solve it, now he (or she) looks at a problem and tries to figure out which “Special Operations Unit” to call out. Is this best served by Trench Rescue? Technical Rescue? High Angle Rescue? Water Rescue? RIT? EMS? LE?… The list goes on and the public suffers accordingly. The fire service is paid well, has an enviable work schedule, great benefits, good security, prestige, etc. In exchange for all of these things, we should be able to expect a physically fit, intelligent, well-trained generalist who can respond to ALL needs and do what it takes to help the public he serves.
Incidentally, this is not an isolated incident. Read http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington?fId=121535594&fPath=/home&fDomain=10212 or search for “Austin Anglin” and “Camano Bay” to read of an even more tragic episode that unfortunately illustrates my points all too well.
How do we square these stories with the Tarrytown, NY CSR incident, or Muncie, Indiana CSR incident?
http://firelawblog.com/2010/12/ny-osha-cites-fire-department-in-confined-space-rescue-fatality/
We cannot be everything to everyone – and with limited funds – hard decisions are forced on us. When the cuts are made the public tells us they realize that hard choices are necessary but make the cuts anyway. Then when someone dies they are “disgusted” with us…. there is a disconnect.