St. Pete Firefighters Sue MSA Over Cairns 1044 Helmets
Four St. Petersburg, Florida firefighters filed suit against Mine Safety Appliances and a local vendor earlier this month claiming that their Cairns 1044 fire helmets injured their necks and backs. They join firefighter Scott Crowell who filed the identical suit in 2013.
The four firefighters, Francis Thomas, Robert Henderson, Gregory Harvin, and Christopher Henderson, along with Crowell are suing MSA and Ten-8 Fire Equipment, Inc. claiming that the helmets are too heavy and poorly designed.
Their attorney, Jim Magazine, was quoted by the Tampa Bay Times as saying:
- “The problem with the design is that they’re heavier than the other helmets, and they’re not as balanced”
- “This helmet’s a recipe for disaster.”
- “The model these guys got is a bad model.”
- “We believe this is going to be a nationwide case.”
Prior to 2010, St. Petersburg Fire Rescue issued the smaller Philadelphia style helmets, but switched to the more traditional style. According to Fire Chief Jim Large, approximately 90 percent of firefighters at the department are now outfitted with Cairns and he’s heard no complaints about them. “We’re not changing out any 1044 Cairns. …We’re not testing new helmets.” The city was not named in any of the five suits.
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….
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.