Lately, it has become a growing concern on the people who deal with the provision of emergency services. The liability of the field of emergency services has become one of major concern. Threats of litigation facing the volunteers that provide emergency services might become a demotivation to them and this may cause a withdrawal in the number of organizations willing to provide these services. The essay that follows will give a detailed account of the tort reform processes that face the fire department and other institutions that offer emergency services. The threat of litigation has become the major concern in some remote areas where the residents highly rely on emergency services. The essay will give a brief definition of what tort is and then it will give a detailed account of the tort reform system that faces the fire department and other emergency services (Burke, 2002, p. 13). According to Waites (2003, p. 23), “tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages”. A tort is a system whereby the wrongs were done by one party against another’s person, possessions, or other secluded interests are compensated using monetary value. Tort reform, therefore, activates for personal injuries. The tort system in itself requires that in the case that a party or an individual harms or causes harm to the other, it requires that the victim is to be compensated usually in terms of money. This monetary compensation is aimed at making up for the loss that may be incurred by the victim in the case of recovery, for the pain that they may have undergone, or even for the loss of any segment of their body parts. The local jurisdiction should take a critical look at what their expectations of the fire and other emergency departments should entail. It is the natural nature of every role or service provider to impose costs and other associated risks on the citizens and the serviced providers themselves. Nurses and doctors are now living in constant fear of facing litigation if they fail to provide emergency services to patients. This has been a case that is currently affecting even the other sectors that deal with the provision of emergency services. Normally, accidents occur in two incidences. The first incidence is where the two parties do not know about each other’s existence up until the time of the accident. The other kind of accident is where the two parties have sufficient knowledge about each other before the occurrence of the accident. Before the 1960s the two used to be treated on separate grounds. In the case where the two parties did not know each other, the case was treated under tort law. This used to preside over a case that happened between two strangers. In the case where the two parties knew each other, the case was treated under contract law. However, in recent years this dissimilarity has been virtually done away with by the court system. Presently, the courts are not willing to agree to contractual limits in the case of injuries that occur between parties that knew each other aforehand. This reluctance might apply to both the standards that govern liability in addition to the restrictions of damage recompense (Perelman, 2006, para. 7) In the case of those agencies that deal