The fire department is dispatched to a fire in a single family dwelling fire in an affluent neighborhood. The fire department arrives on scene to find a large single family dwelling on fire with exposures on both the Bravo and Delta sides. Fire is noted to be spreading to the Delta side exposure. Initial fire department operations focus controlling the spread of fire in the exposures. Eventually the fire is contained and extinguished. Damage to the exposures is limited. However, damage to the home where the fire originally started is extensive. The owner of the original home is upset that the fire department didn't put the fire out at his house first. He maintains that he was the one that called 911 to report the fire and the dispatcher said the fire department was "on the way." So, the owner believe that the fire at his home should have been put out first. The owner claims that the fire department was negligent in their actions. The fire department maintains that the strategy and tactics employed saved the entire block of homes as was in accordance with nationally accepted best practices.

Part 1: For the first part of this Discussion Question, please discuss the public duty doctrine and how it may apply to this case study. Please discuss the impacts of the public duty doctrine on the operations of the organization that you represent. Does sovereign immunity apply to this case study?

Part 2: For the second part of this Discussion Question, please identify and discuss the elements of negligence. Do you feel the home owner has valid claim of negligence?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Part 1 Public Duty Doctrine The public duty doctrine is a legal principle that holds that government entities and their employees are generally not liable for failing to provide individual citizens wi... View the full answer