Yes, Chris, I don't give legal advice, but under our legal system government is not sued for failure to regulate. Take automobiles. A whole raft of features have been shown to reduce fatalities. Each has taken years to be implemented. Padded dashboards, laminated safety glass, brake systems that allow one half to fail and still provide braking to two wheels, seat belts, shoulder belts, decent fuel systems that don't often catch fire, cars designed to absorb energy from front impact, then late side and rear, collapsible steering columns, air bags, roll over protection, .... At each breach government would have been sued successfully if it was possible to do so.
bv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Cahill" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:50:15 AM Subject: RE: Home sprinkler mandate in MN First, To be clear, in MN any way, the legislation is the cities or state code authorities can't force sprinklers. It does not ban them. B, does not the gov't and especially the legislature have immunities to being sued. I'd think sprinklers are the least the legislature has done to hurt and kill people. 3, as far as lawyers, I wonder why insurance companies aren't suing builders on the should have known theory and at least offered sprinklers. I'd love to see the lawyers work for us and as a home owner sue a builder direct after a loss. Still though amazes the insurance companies haven't. I know a case where the home owners insurance paid a claim then sued the home owner because they left the front door open when they ran out. Granted the judge threw the case out and reprimanded the insurance company. -, A long time ago I had a conversation with the CPSC about how ridiculous they were in recalling a product causing problems. They should be recalling houses as defective without sprinklers. They babbled on about how houses weren't products and they identify root cause problems. I countered the housing industry has indeed commoditized house building and a dishwashers that smokes up 7 times isn't a win for them when the 3 leading causes of fire are men, women and children. Woopdeedo they stopped a handful of potential fires if people actually paid attention to recalls and got their product fixed. But if they recalled the house they'd stop them all. *, boils down to, like most things, to who has the money. Builders have far more than the fire service. If you are in the business of getting and staying in power like most elected officials you will always side with the money. One can get elected with money, then buy the fire service a shiny new truck (using their own money (taxes)) and be the hero! Odd world we live in. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Home sprinkler mandate in MN Someone will die in a fire in a home built after this law is passed. It will happen in Texas, and in every state where sprinklers are specifically banned from being installed. A smart lawyer will sue the state and the state will be asked how this is different than banning child car seats, or legislating to ban the wearing of safety glasses, or anything else that is an anti-safety positive (positive being actionable in this sense, against statute, not a plus, nor merely being apathetic). The state will have to defend itself against a wrongful death suit in that they willfully denied the injured party the ability to protect himself against a known threat with a known, and efficacious safety enhancement. Water purveyors ague for double feed lines, one dedicated to sprinklers, because of some perceived liability they'll be subject to if they turn off water service and a fire occurs. Will AHJs, fire commissioners, city fathers, etc. refuse to enforce this rule because they might b e held liable as accessories to a wrongful death suit despite the law. I don't know. The builders have made claims they won't be able to support when their "fire-safe" houses don't protect the occupants from contents fires. And of course there will be the breach, there always is without sprinks, and then the lightweight structure rapidly fails. My advice to firefighters, for their own safety, is to perform their rescues, but once that's done let the place burn to the ground. No running into structurally unsound buildings, walking around on roofs, and a very visible demonstration of what happens without sprinklers. And we all know: SPRINKLERS SAVE (firefighters') LIVES. On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Scott A Futrell <[email protected]> wrote: > Too late for most anything. It is attached to a funding bill that > will be passed and although the Governor vetoed this NAHB/BAM > (Builders Association of Minnesota) direct bill in 2012, he cannot > line item veto it as far as I know. Ten legislators (almost all of > whom have already voted for the ban) will vote on this in committee. > > > > Here was my response to the former Speaker of the Minnesota House: > > > > Below is an email that I just received a copy of that is being sent > out to support the Builders. > > > > I would guess that home builders make a great deal of money remodeling > and repairing homes that have suffered fire damage. Sprinklers would > limit fire damage and repair costs. Why do you think builders don't > want sprinklers? > > > > When I built my home on 9338 Minnesota Lane (just down from yours) > Orrin Thompson would not let me put sprinklers in (1990). Today the > same thing is happening across the state with a builder in Blaine not > allowing a new home buyer to install sprinklers last year. > > > > If they allowed sprinklers, and if they offered them, we wouldn't be > fighting now. Also, communities, as I stated the other day, can > realize cost savings in fire department equipment and operations if > residential sprinklers are installed. How can those kinds of > potential savings be ignored? That's just one aspect, there is also > the potential for narrower streets, more homes per street, fewer fire > hydrants (spaced farther apart) and more, but you are not hearing any of > that, are you? > > > > Home builders aren't mentioning that granite counter tops cost more > than residential sprinklers or that the furnishings in one room of a > home cost more than residential sprinklers, are they? > > > > Look at the link attached where the "NAHB is showing home buyers why > they can afford a higher-priced home..." That seems ironic doesn't it? > > > > > http://rismedia.com/2013-04-08/lower-operating-costs-mean-new-home-buy > ers-can-afford-more-house/ > > > > See my comments below. > > > > Scott Futrell > > (763) 425-1001 Office > > (612) 759-5556 Cell > > > > > > Take Action: Contact the 10 Conference Committee members by calling > or clicking on their linked email addresses above. You can use the > example email below or compose your own message. > > > > Example Email: > > > > Subj: Vote No on Mandatory Indoor Sprinkler System for MN Homes > > > > Dear , > > > > I'm a Minnesotan who works in the homebuilding industry. I strongly > support the provision in the Omnibus Jobs and Economic Development > Finance bill which prohibits a mandate for home sprinkler systems in > our state's building code. Newly built homes in Minnesota are a > national model for fire safety where fire deaths have virtually > disappeared. There are other important factors I'd ask you to consider: > > > > * The housing industry plays a critical role in the state's > ongoing economic recovery. > > * Coming out of the recession, consumers are very > price-sensitive. > > * The cost of meeting the home sprinkler mandate is > approximately $2.00 per square foot, and twice that for homes with > well water. For a 4,500 square foot (unfinished) home, this adds > $9,000 -$18,000 to the cost of purchase.[saf] This is a very > subjective number and can only be determined on a home-by-home basis. > Remember this is new home construction only and is just as important > to rural Minnesotan's as it is to city Minnesotan's because it can > take a considerable amount of time for a volunteer fire department to > get to a remote location. The Builders cannot point to a CREDIBLE > study that supports their costs. There are credible studies that give > realistic costs. > > * Once installed, a sprinkler system requires more rigorous > testing and maintenance than an equally-effective hard-wired smoke > alarm system, further increasing costs for homeowners.[saf] THIS IS FALSE! > Virtually no maintenance or testing is required (I would be happy to > provide you with the manual for the one- and two-family dwelling > requirements NFPA 13D) and smoke alarms need their batteries replaced > annually, to be tested monthly, and they need to be replaced every ten > years. None of that with sprinklers. > > * The potential impact of a false positive is also significant > - while a false alarm for a smoke detector awakens the family, with a > sprinkler system the house is flooded.[saf] This is a very remote > possibility and not something that a fire and life safety issue > decision should hinge upon. The fact is false alarms with smoke > alarms make people disconnect their smoke alarms and then they aren't > working when they are needed. > > Scott > > > > (763) 425-1001 Office > > (612) 759-5556 Cell > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of George > Church > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Home sprinkler mandate in MN > > > > Is there a truth on advertising law that could lead to cease and resist? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
