Chief,
Thanks for the blog Chief! I had a couple of questions concerning the above case. Perhaps you could lend a little insight into them.
1) The employer was excluded because, as the article states, "the city would have had to had knowledge that the helmets were defective." What determines "knowledge" for future potential purchasers? Does this case need to be found in the plaintiffs favor? Or is knowledge of the case being filed sufficient for notice for future purchasers and potential claims?
2) If the suit is found in the plaintiffs' favor, would St. Petersburg (and presumably other employers) be able to recover workers comp payments, time loss, etc. from Cairns?
Thank you,
Brian

Brian

Good questions - but the answers are not very simple.

1) Most articles written by reporters on legal topics are inaccurate to
say the least. In addition - even when accurate they may be based on the
law applicable in the particular case/jurisdiction - but be of little
use outside the case/jurisdiction. That being said - I do not believe
the quote is accurate in most jurisdictions, so debating "knowledge"
misses a bigger point. Secondly - the term "defective" is imprecise -
and in the end can only be defined by juries in the context of an actual
lawsuit... so again debating "knowledge" misses another big point... is
the helmet actually defective? Is it defective because one jury says
so???... two juries... six... what if 10 say it is and 20 say its not...It can get messy determining whether something is defective... let alone whether someone "knows" about it being defective. In most jurisdictions a fire
department will have several layers of liability protection - starting
with workers compensation exclusivity protection, then sovereign
immunity, then perhaps statutory immunity. That is the bigger issue in
this case - and that is why the plaintiffs likely did not sue the city... it
was less about knowledge of the defect and more about the liability
protections the city has.

2) - Yes - and No . In most jurisdictions the FD would be entitled to a lien on the Plaintiffs' recovery for any expenses it has paid. They would not recover directly from Cairns/MSA (although they arguably could sue under a right of subrogation) but rather from the firefighters - since the award to the firefighters would presumably include the costs of their medical bills,
workers comp, lost wages. etc.

Not the simple answers you thought you were asking....

According to their advertisement

The 1044 helmet is made of dura glass composite materials, rather than leather.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out if it's determined that the helmet may be a bit lighter than a leather one and may meet the same specifications as a leather helmet.

What happens then?

Chief Varone,
I also enjoy your blog, lots of good information. Anyways about 2 years ago, my department also switched from the Cairns 1010 to the 1044. While I agree with the suing firefighters that the new helmet is heavier, not balanced and is not comfortable to wear (this is the 3rd helmet I've had in 24 years) I don't know if I would sue over it. Any idea if these firefighters requested another type of helmet if they thought it was causing injury? By not asking for a replacement helmet, will that effect their lawsuit? Thanks for any information you can provide.

Mike

Listen to the Podcast I did last week with their attorney, Jim Magazine. According to Jim, each FF required neck surgery at virtually the same location, and their surgeon - upon donning the helmet, attributed their injuries to it.

From my perspective - I prefer a New Yorker... and I wonder what the doc would say if he tried one of those on... or a Sam Houston... LOL!!!!

My approach with these kinds of suits... you have to wait and see until the experts (engineers, docs, etc.) get done scrutinizing the data. Its easy to assume cases like this are frivolous... Heck the attorney was skeptical when they first raised the issue - and so was the surgeon - but both reached the same conclusion. Time will tell and I'll reserve judgement for the time being.

The 1010 and 1044 are the same exact helmet with different finishes.