Skip to content


New Jersey AG Seeks Forfeiture of Vehicles

The Attorney General for the State of New Jersey has filed suit to recover two SUVs allegedly purchased with funds stolen by the treasurer of a volunteer fire department.

The strange story began last February when State Police charged Lisa Ayers, 39, with stealing more than $75,000 from the Mine Hill Volunteer Fire Department. The thefts are believed to have occurred over the past two years while Ayers served as treasurer.

The investigation revealed that stolen funds were used in part to finance two SUVs, one registered to Ayers and the other registered to her husband, who at the time was Mine Hill’s fire chief. State Police seized the vehicles when they arrested Ayers.

No charges have been brought against Chief Ayers, who subsequently resigned. The AG’s suit was filed today in Superior Court in Morristown. It asks the court to order the forfeiture of the Ayers’ interest in both vehicles

The Daily Record is reporting that among things that Ayer’s did was obtain an unauthorized $44,000 mortgage on the fire station, pay her own personal bills with fire department funds, and write department checks payable to cash.

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Theft in the Volunteer Fire Service, Volunteers

Tagged , , , , , ,

New Jersey Enacts Cathy’s Law Criminalizing Photo Taking at Emergency Scenes

The State of New Jersey has finally pulled the trigger on Cathy’s Law, joining the state of Connecticut by formally criminalizing the (a) taking or (b) dissemination of emergency scene photos depicting a patient by emergency responders.

Cathy’s Law was named in honor of Cathy Bates of Ocean County, who was fatally injured on October 23, 2009. As she lay dying in her vehicle a volunteer firefighter snapped a photo of her and posted it to Facebook long before her family was notified she had been involved in the crash. Riding the public outrage following the revelation of what occurred, Cathy’s mother, Lucille Bates-Wickward, mounted a grass-roots lobbying campaign intended to help prevent future lapses in judgment by responders.

Governor Chris Christie signed the bill into law yesterday, and it became effective upon signing. New Jersey joins Connecticut who passed a similar law that became effective on October 1, 2011. The Connecticut law imposes a $2,000 fine and 6 months in jail for responders who violate it.

As originally introduced several years ago, Cathy’s Law would have imposed a $10,000 fine and up to 18 months in jail. As enacted the law makes it illegal to take a photo/video depicting the victim “except in accordance with applicable rules, regulations, or operating procedures of the agency employing the first responder”; or to disclose (ie. disseminate, copy, post, forward or share) such a photo/video without the patient’s prior written consent.

Violation of Cathy’s law is by statute deemed to be a “disorderly conduct offense”, and triggers civil liability of the responder to the victim or victim’s family in the amount of $1,000 per photo, plus attorneys fees along with the possibility of punitive damages. Here is a copy of the statute. Cathys Law

I cannot help but feel a sense of failure at the passage of laws such as Cathy’s Law. Had fire service leaders (myself included) had the courage and foresight to address the challenge of emergency scene photo taking through clear policies and proper training of personnel, such a law would be unnecessary. In the memorable words of one of my former officers “Kid, we either keep our own house clean, or someone’s gonna come in here and clean it for us”. His next sentence is also worth considering: “And we’re probably not gonna like the way they clean it”. It is a predictable and therefore preventable problem.

In the mean time, if you are in New Jersey or Connecticut and your department does not have a digital imagery policy that allows you to take photos or video: turn off your helmet cam, turn off your dash cam, and keep your camera or cellphone in your pocket… and don’t be posting photos taken by others!

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Criminal Law, Social Media, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , ,

Fire Company Hit with Multi-Million Dollar Verdict

A New Jersey volunteer fire company that responded to a wires down incident in 2007, has been hit with a major portion of a $20.5 million verdict in favor of a man who was shocked and traumatically injured.

Last Friday, a jury found the Northside Engine Company, of Tinton Falls, to be 60 percent responsible for the injuries sustained by William Hagerman on February 15, 2007. The jury concluded that the remaining 40% share was attributable to Jersey Central Power & Light.

The incident occurred during an ice storm. The fire company was dispatched to reported wires down, and according to Hagerman’s attorney, Norman Hobbie, left the scene aware that the wires were live and in the Hagerman’s driveway.

News reports also indicate that an electric company supervisor and a police officer were on the scene when Hagerman and his wife attempted to drive out of their driveway. The car struck the wires, creating sparks that prompted Hagerman to pull back into the driveway and exit the vehicle. Unfortunately when he exited his vehicle, it was still in contact with the wires.

As a result of his injuries, Hagerman lost an arm and a leg, and suffered massive burn injuries. Oddly enough the jury did not assess any fault to Hagerman himself, nor a police officer who was on the scene. In fact, Hobbie referred to the police officer as the “hero” of the story for coming to Hagerman’s aid following his injury.

While some of what has been written about the case seems to make sense, I have to admit I am a bit baffled. First of all, was ICS used by the responding agencies and/or considered by the lawyers? The news reports don’t get into the details of what occurred – but ICS is one of those things that lawyers (non-firefighter lawyers that is) do not quite understand. If command of the incident had been duly turned over to the police and/or the electric company supervisor, why was the fire department even in the suit…. Of course if ICS was not used… or they didn’t formally pass command … well… that might explain why they were left holding the bag.

Second, how can the homeowner not bear some level of responsibility for noticing a down electrical wire in his driveway? Wouldn’t the various fire, police and electric company vehicles parked in front of his property be a tip-off that something might be up? Seriously, are people entitled to be that oblivious that it becomes totally our obligation to protect them from hazards such as electrical wires down in their own driveway? Zero % responsibility to Hagerman, himself…. Seriously? Not even 1%???

Third, if volunteer firefighters have an obligation to warn Mr. Hagerman, why wouldn’t a paid police officer have an obligation to warn Mr. Hagerman? Why would it fall 60% on the fire department (who were no longer on the scene) and 40% on the electric company, and 0% on the police? Sometimes these cases come down to the lawyering and if the right arguments are not made…. Well … you end up with a verdict that leaves you scratching your head. Then again, if a fire company really did drive away from a truly dangerous situation involving lives wires down leaving them totally unattended and someone gets seriously injured.. what would you expect to be the outcome?

Lastly – I would have expected the fire department to have been dismissed from the case based on the public duty rule, and perhaps that issue, or some form of immunity argument may still be litigated in a post-verdict motion and/or appeal. (Note a quick check failed to disclose any prior public duty rule cases in NJ…. Hint to fire company lawyer… maybe its not too late to make some new law….). Stay tuned… its not over til…. the check is in the bank.

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Duty to Act, Immunity, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Volunteers, Wrongful death

Tagged , , , , ,

Political Signs and Firefighters: 1st Amendment Case

A Federal Court in New Jersey last week ruled against a firefighter who claimed his department violated his 1st and 14th Amendment rights. Edison firefighter Peter Yackel parked his personal pickup truck in the parking lot of his firehouse on June 1, 2009 when he went to work. The problem was the truck bore a large political sign stating "Choi Lies! Save Public Safety In Edison." Also June 2, 2009 was election day, and Mayor Choi was seeking re-election. And city personnel rules prohibit engaging in political activities while on duty.

Later that day Yackel was instructed to move the truck, which he dutifully did. On June 3, 2009, he was informed he was suspended for 5 days. Within days Yackel sued Mayor Choi and the fire chief in Federal District Court alleging that the discipline violated his freedom of speech and the suspension without an opportunity for a hearing violated his due process rights. Yackel claimed the sign in his truck was protected speech about an important matter of public concern, and the discipline he received was retaliation.

In a well reasoned decision issued March 16, 2010, the court concluded that while the sign arguably did speak to matters of public concern, the 1st Amendment does not require that a public employee be allowed to engage in political advertising from public property while working as a public employee. In dispensing with the due process claims, the court said that while admittedly Yackel was not given a hearing before he was disciplined, he had adequate “post-deprivation” remedies to address his due process rights, including a union grievance procedure. Given that the penalty was only a five day suspension, due process did not require a pre-deprivation hearing.

Here is a copy of the written decision. Download Yackel-dismissal-opinion

No word on whether there will be an appeal. Incidentally, the Mayor lost the election.

Posted in Civil Suit, Disciplinary Action, First Amendment

Tagged , , ,

Lemon Law for Emergency Vehicles

A “lemon law” for emergency vehicles. When I first saw the headline, my reaction was: why didn’t I think of that? The concept of a lemon law for emergency vehicles is now a reality in New Jersey, believed to be the first state to adopt such a law.

Typical lemon laws cover non-commercial (passenger) vehicles, and require the manufacturers of covered vehicles to replace or buy-back “lemon” vehicles that have experienced either repeated mechanical problems or long periods of being in the shop. States differ on the specifics of lemon law coverage and conditions.  New Jersey’s law applies to a new vehicle that has one or more defects that continue to exist after three repair attempts or after the vehicle has been out of service for a total of 20 days, during the first two years or 24,000 miles, whichever comes first. New Jersey’s previous “Lemon Law” exempted emergency vehicles from coverage.

The new law was originally introduced in the New Jersey legislature in 2008 after an ambulance purchased by the Flanders Fire Department and Rescue Squad in Mount Olive Township, encountered persistent problems with its drive train, leading to long periods in the shop. Working with legislators, emergency responders across the state rallied the necessary support, and the bill was signed into law by Gov. Jon Corzine on January 19, 2010. The bill covers fire trucks, ambulances, police cars and other emergency vehicles. It includes a provision requiring manufacturers to cover the cost of rental vehicles for vehicles that are out of service for a covered lemon law “nonconformity” (problem).

Congratulations to everyone involved in this effort.

Download NJ Lemon Law Emerg Vehicles

More on the storyAnd More.

Posted in General legal issues, Product Liability

Tagged , , ,