Opinion ID: 2033248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The city's fire department service response policy and plaintiff's contentions.

Text: The Burlington fire department service response policy outlines the department's proposed responses to various fire situations and lists the minimum equipment and personnel to be dispatched to a particular type of fire. At the time of plaintiff's fire, the service response policy for a residential fire stated the following: E-1 [engine truck with three firefighters], S-15 [fire truck with three firefighters], C-16 [fire command vehicle with two firefighters], and E-2 [engine with two firefighters] T-13 (fire truck) and/or amb. [ambulance] shall respond at Incident Commander discretion. The service response policy also contains the following statement: It is understood that on occasion extenuating circumstances may arise that will not permit responses exactly as outlined herein. The Shift Command Officer will however do the absolute best to comply with these minimum requirements. The record shows that three firefighters and one fire truck (S-15 type) were dispatched to plaintiff's residence as directed by battalion chief, Larry Werner, in response to plaintiff's 911 emergency call. No reason was given by defendant in the record as to why the written service response policy was not followed and there were no apparent extenuating circumstances or other emergencies that prevented the fire department from following its service response policy. Plaintiff's theory was that the damage to her home and property could have been reduced if the fire department had followed its service response policy and immediately dispatched the proper equipment and personnel upon learning of the fire. Plaintiff further contends that responding to an emergency does not permit municipal officials or employees to ignore laws or policies that are established for the safety of all citizens. Additionally, plaintiff argues that a fact question remains concerning whether her damages were a result of the defendant's alleged negligence for failing to follow the fire department service response policy. In essence, plaintiff's contention is that the immunity provisions of chapter 670 do not apply when a governmental subdivision fails to follow written policies governing the conduct and actions of its officers and employees in carrying out their official duties.