I am smoking mad. I realize that they can because they did, but I am angry. My husband ran into a ditch. No big deal but the tire came off the rim and the car had to be towed. While waiting for the tow truck, the police, fire department, and EMS showed up! He has no idea who called. Anyway, while he was on the phone to the tow truck guy, the fire guys CUT THE CABLES leading to the battery. They "claimed" it was "standard procedure". What the heck? I am thinking of taking them to small claims court to get the cost of the repair back. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? It was a simple car verses ditch, no gasoline spill or anything. The airbag didn't even go off.
2006-11-07 06:57:40 · 6 answers · asked by Zelda 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Since my husband was standing right there, couldn't they have asked him if he had a tool to remove the cables before taking it upon themselves to CUT them?
2006-11-07 07:08:06 · update #1
Most fire departments disable the battery and electrical system of any vehicle that has been involved in an accident -- it usually does not make much difference on how bad the damage was or if the airbags were deployed or not. They take no chances of potential damage to the electrical system which might subsequently start a fire or cause further damage (at which point the vehicle owner will be equally mad). Also, fire depatments can never be sure that the air bags will not deploy unexpectedly after even a seemingly minor accident; unexpected air bag deployments (these can happen long after the time of the accident) have killed people (including firefighters). Lastly, many tow truck companies will not transport a vehicle involved in an accident unless the battery is "isolated" by the fire department for the reasons stated above.
In older days, the standard procedure was to simply cut the battery cables. In much more recent years, however, most fire departments employ a tool called a "terminal puller" which simply pulls the cable clamps off of the battery posts and allows the cable to be quickly reconnected again after there is confirmation that it is safe to do so (usually by a mechanic).
Although your accident was fortunately a very minor one, somebody obviously called 911 -- which started a standard response from police, fire and EMS (how would they know how severe or minor the accident was? Most often than not, the reporting details are very scetchy and vague -- dispatchers, therefore, have to assume the worst and deliver prompt care...)
I think that you will be unsuccessful taking legal action against the fire department involved since isolating the battery is a standard procedure. It's just too bad that this fire department does not have access to more modern equipment such as the one I described which would have prevented the need to replace your battery cables.
Not trying to offer an excuse for the profession or the department that served you, but I hope that my explanation provides you with a bit more of an understanding from the firefighter side of the job.
2006-11-09 15:15:27 · answer #1 · answered by ggfire 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were just acting according to standard procedure. Although if there was no other front end damage they didn't need to cut them.
Most car fires occur due to shorts in the electrical system, by cutting the cables they eliminate the possiblity of a short.
Personnaly I wouldn't cut the cables in a car vs. ditch unless there was serious front end or undercarriage damage, in which case the $40 to replace the cables would be negligible compared to the repairs anyway.
2006-11-07 07:03:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe it's a precaution, so that the battery doesn't send a charge and set the car on fire. Just because you don't see gasoline, oil or anything else, doesn't mean it's not there. Better safe than sorry. Besides, cables are cheap, life is not.
2006-11-07 07:03:33 · answer #3 · answered by FireBug 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have never heard of It . Removing power coming from the battery is wise, because there may be a leak you don't know about. But, they didn't have to cut the cables. You can't take them to small claims. because they are covered in the proformance of their duties
It was a Jerky thing to do though they could have taken the clamps off of the post
2006-11-07 07:10:40 · answer #4 · answered by Democestes 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you ought to replace that twine yet extra suitable than possibly the difficulty remains there and the replace twine will do the comparable factor, until eventually the cable ist self replaced into only worn by as a results of age and vibration.
2016-10-21 10:39:26 · answer #5 · answered by goodknight 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
10 years later and still yes. They don t want to get electrocuted. So they cut the cables. Get over it.
2017-04-18 12:43:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋