ApparatusCivil SuitMunicipal LiabilityNegligenceWrongful death
Claim Filed in San Francisco in Plane Crash Death
A civil claim has been filed against the City of San Francisco by the parents of a 16-year-old Chinese girl who died following the crash of an Asiana Airlines last July. Ye Meng Yuan was allegedly struck by two San Francisco Fire Department vehicles while she lay injured on the tarmac covered in foam.
Her parents, Gan Ye and Xiao Yun Zheng, filed the administrative claim with the city alleging gross negligence by the city for failing to properly train firefighters, mark the locations of victims, and above all avoid hitting them with their vehicles. An amount of damages has not been specified.
The claim is a necessary precursor to a civil tort suit against the city. The city has 45 days to settle the claim before a suit can be filed.
Curt, What's your thoughts on this? From everything I have read. It was nothing more then a tragic accident. Do you think there was negligence on the FD??
Woody
I don't know enough about the details to know for sure. It would seem to me the airline is a much easier target for causing the crash in the first place. Chasing the SFFD may be more trouble than it is worth. The FD likely has some measure of liability protection through normal immunity types of defenses, plus the public duty doctrine… it may be hard for the family to prove the FD was anything more than negligent (and even that could be tough to prove in all the understandable chaos that was going on at the scene).
One thing that I have not heard discussed at all (maybe because it was not an issue) was staffing on the ARFF vehicles. The NFPA staffing requirements for ARFF are considerably higher than the FAAs… which are driven by economics not safety. Most civilian airports follow FAA staffing requirements (fewer folks – just enough to lay down foam, not perform rescues) while the military staffs their ARFFs heavier (lay down foam and perform rescues). Again – I don't know enough about the particulars to know if that was even an issue – but I am suprised that no one – including the family in this case – has raised it. It would seem to me that this scenario is one of the forseeable consequences of an understaffed ARFF response .
Now you've got me curious about ARFF staffing levels, Curt.
Google finds this, EFO program research paper from 1998, "Staffing Concerns Regarding ARFF Apparatus"
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo29161.pdf
Thanks Mike
The big philosophical difference between the FAA and the NFPA has to do with who will assist injured aircraft passengers. The NFPA staffing model provides personnel to assist injured passengers, stretch hose lines, enter aircraft, and effect rescues whereas the FAA model focuses solely on applying foam… The FAA assumes "someone" will take care of that pesky chore of dealing with injured passengers… you know, flight attendants, ground crews… and eventually the local fire department. The SF case would seem to me to highlight that philosophical difference… or rather show one example of the consequences of the FAA staffing model.
The moment news was released that this young lady was run over it struck me as likely a suit would follow. I've not worked an aircraft crash so out of my capability to answer negligence, poor training or lack of appropriate skills but this will be a thorn in the side of this department no doubt.
More appropriate would be class action against airline, but according to article it is required for this action to be filed as a precursor.
Sad all around.
Curt, have you seen the CBS-broadcast SFFD footage, from helmet- and truck-cams?
The footage seems quite spectacular to me, at least compared with regular (structural) helmet cam clips.
Do you think this'll be a game-changer, with regard to how persona/vehicle-based fire/EMS footage is regarded as a useful/damning tool?