4 ms·

Then try watching the interview with the victim on MSNBC. They can waive the fees, as they have done before. And both him and his neighbor said "we'll pay howev

• tptacek 16y ago
  What's your point? The (fire) victim chose to live in an area that had no fire department; when offered fire coverage at an extremely nominal fee (two cups of coffee a month!), they opted out. About the most you could change in this scenario would have been for the FD not to have offered the service to residents outside their area, which would have made everybody worse off.
• anamax 16y ago
  > And both him and his neighbor said "we'll pay however much you say". That's clearly not true. For example, he wouldn't have paid his house. Note that they're not set up to sign a contract at the scene and even if they were, it would be signed under duress, so it would be unenforceable. The only way "we'll pay" works is if he has the cash on hand. Do you really want to complain that they didn't offer that option?
  • anigbrowl 16y ago
    Actually no. Under a theory of quantum meruit (something having worth), the firefighters could bill the homeowner unless he asked them not to assist. It requires showing a defendant knowingly received a benefit from the plaintiff and retained it afterwards - in this case, a house still standing. Here's a recent Ohio case illustrating the principle - first fire-related one I found. Although this is about a bill for boarding up a property after a fire than actual firefighting, it explains the idea very clearly: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2010/2010-ohio-419.pdf http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2010/2010-oh...