VLOG: Burn Litigation and the Firefighter’s Rule

Posted by: Curt Varone May 3, 2021 0

In this episode, Curt and attorney Paul Samakow discuss the Firefighter’s Rule, and in particular the challenges of recovering damages for burn injuries.

Paul is a nationally known advocate for burn survivors and their families.  He has a national practice representing burn survivors.  Paul is the author of a book about compensation for burn survivors – Twice Burned – which, along with a paper he has written – A Handbook for the Caregivers of Burn Survivors, which talks about compassion fatigue – is available for free.

Paul also is the creator of National Burn Prevention Day (www.nationalburnpreventionday.org) which is coming up on May 19th.

About Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 45 years of fire service experience and 35 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.
© Copyright 2017, All Rights Reserved. | FireLawBlog.com & Curt Varone | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
x

Check Also

Family of Murdered LA County Firefighter Receives $7.2 Million Settlement

The family of a Los Angeles County firefighter who was shot and killed by a disgruntled colleague in 2021, will receive a settlement of $7.2 million. Tory Carlon was shot and killed by firefighter Jonathan Patrick Tatone at LA County Station 81 on June 1, 2021.

Michigan Fire Department Immune from Liability in Blocking Accident

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a fire department that uses apparatus to block traffic at an accident scene, is entitled to governmental immunity in the event that an errant driver strikes the vehicle. The decision reverses a trial court ruling that held that the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity applied to potentially expose the department to liability.