M. Eburn

The cost of parking in front of a hydrant

In Criminal law, Driving and Road Rules, Fire on April 2, 2013 at 8:54 pm

This could appear as a comment to my previous post on parking in front of a fire hydrant, but I couldn’t then add the photo, below.  A friend and retained firefighter with Fire and Rescue NSW asked:

“What rights do fire fighters have do damage property that isn’t directly involved in a fire or other emergency? I do understand we can damage property if it is involved or at threat but like this picture below what about a vehicle halfway down the block.”fire hydrant parking

That’s an amusing photo, but one has to think that was malicious rather than necessary. The hose could have been routed across the bonnet or even between the two parked cars. Putting the hose on the bonnet may have damaged the car but that would be justified and lawful, I’m not so sure about putting it through the window. I’ll explain in more detail.

The Fire Brigades Act 1989 (NSW) s 13 says that the officer in charge, at the scene of a fire, “may take such measures as the officer thinks proper for the protection and saving of life and property and for the control and extinguishing of the fire.” Further, the “officer in charge may, to control, extinguish or prevent the spread of the fire, cause … a vehicle to be removed or destroyed …” (s 16). Finally the “officer in charge … may cause to be removed any … vehicle … the presence of … which … in the officer’s opinion, [might] interfere with the work of any fire brigade or the exercise of any of the officer’s functions” (s 19). The critical issues here are that the action is necessary to take action to control the fire or the hazardous materials incident. There is no reference to the geographic limit, ie how close the car or other property has to be near the fire.

The law says that when a parliament grants a power under statute it’s expected to be used and there can be no liability for doing what the Parliament authorised if the damage done was necessary. So where there’s a power to knock down a wall, the owner cannot complain, nor can the owner of property that the wall falls onto unless they can show there was a way to bring the wall down that was reasonably open and would not have damaged their property (Vaughan v Webb (1902) 2 SR(NSW) 293).

To put that in the context of the photo, if that happened in NSW and there was no other way to route the hose then so be it. Alternatively the brigade could have broken into the car and moved it out of the way. But as I’ve noted, it seems to me (and I acknowledge I’m not a fire fighter) that it could have been routed over the bonnet. That would have been justified and any damage say to the paint work would be deemed to be damage done by fire (Fire Brigades Act 1989 (NSW) s 38 and therefore covered by any insurance policy the car owner holds, or else it is their own risk. And if putting the hose through the windows was done in good faith, it too would be deemed to be damage done by fire).

Fire and Rescue NSW may also seek to stand on section 78 which says:

A matter or thing done, or omitted to be done, by the Minister, the Commissioner, any member of staff of the Department, any member of a fire brigade, any member of a community fire unit or any person acting under the authority of the Commissioner does not, if the matter or thing was done, or omitted to be done, in good faith for the purposes of executing this or any other Act, subject such a person personally, or the Crown, to any action, liability, claim or demand.

The question would be was this done in good faith? If it really was the officer in charge’s honest opinion that this was the only practicable way to route the hose to the fire then that section may apply. If however it was routed that way as extra judicial punishment for the parking offence then that would not be an act done in good faith and the section would not help. The parliament has decided that the penalty for parking in front of a fire hydrant is a maximum fine of 20 penalty units (Road Rules 2008 (NSW) r 194); a penalty unit is $110 (Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 17) so the maximum penalty is a fine of $2200 but that only applies if the prosecution takes place in court. Where the law is enforced by the issue of a parking ticket, the fine is only $99 (Road Transport (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW) s 169 and Schedule 3). So, if the parliament has decided the penalty is a $99 ticket, it’s not up to the fire brigade to determine that the penalty should be more.

So where does that leave us? The answer is yes, fire fighters can do damage to property that isn’t directly involved in a fire or other emergency where that is genuinely believed to be necessary to effectively fight the fire or control the hazardous materials incident. There is no geographic location, ie within 500m of the fire or the like, the issue will always be was it necessary, or believed to be necessary, to fight the fire. Where damage to the property of others is a necessary consequence of that action, then the fire brigades would not be liable for the damage; the owner of the property would have to look to his or her insurers. Where the act is done just to make a point (as I suspect is the case, above) then ultimately the brigade would probably have to make good the damage.

Michael Eburn

2 April 2013

About these ads
  1. One might consider that malicious as this action may seem, thought may have been given to the idea that it would be cheaper and more convenient for owner to replace two rear door glass sections than repair bodywork??

  2. Although you can accuse me of class warfare, that is the funniest thing i’ve ever seen done to a BMW. (Which by the way allegedly means “Break My Window” in Mount Druitt, Sydney.)

  3. it is very simple Michael Eburn. if you do not wish a fire hose through the window of your prize BMW then do not park in front of a fire hydrant and thus cause wasted critical time that may mean the difference in saving a life.
    in the case of the picture the hose wasn’t very strait anyway. however the feed hose needs to be as strait as possible to prevent restriction of water flow. lack of water to the pumper truck produces lack of water on the fire. A simple experiment would be to go turn on your garden hose and monitor the water flow from the end. now grab a section in the middle of the hose and fold it. the harder you fold it the less water flow. you can even stop the water flow. do this to a feed hose to a fire truck and you start running out of water needed to fight the fire.
    in the event of parking in front of a fire hydrant and causing delay in the prevention of fire spread and/or saving lives. the car in the picture should be seen as a preventable occurrence and that the person in charge of parking it should be charged with conduct endangering live and conduct endangering serious injury. not sure about the correct terms of the law but its close.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,136 other followers

%d bloggers like this: