Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Standard of Care Requirements for Fire Investigators
Posted by: Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2007 11:03PM
The first finding of a court decision was that NFPA 921was there was nothing before the court to suggest NFPA 921 was exhaustive or exclusive, thereby allowing an expert’s testimony unreliable. They went on to say that a failure to strictly adhere to all NFPA guidelines renders an investigation incomplete or unreliable.
The second case I mention stated that the plaintiffs suggested that because the report of the company’s expert did not contain evidence that he used the methodology set forth in NFPA 921, his opinions were therefore unreliable. The court disagreed and allowed the investigator to testify.
A third case I just found said while XXXXX may not have complied to the letter with the NFPA recommendations in conducting his cause and origin investigation, he still employed, in this Court's view, the requisite level of "intellectual rigor" that is demanded of experts in the field of fire cause and origin investigations. The Court accordingly concludes that XXXXXX proffered testimony relating to the cause and origin of the fire is reliable and satisfies the first part of the Rule 702/Daubert test.
I can see where you would say these posts do not make sense. Just as you use words such as “Benchmark” and “The Gold Standard” to infer all the cases you mention are really say that 921 is the standard of care for fire investigations, I am saying there are courts with a different opinion. The fact that one finds NFPA 921 is not exhaustive or exclusive, another finds that just because there is nothing in the expert’s report to suggest he used the methodology set forth in NFPA 921 does not suggest that his opinions are unreliable, and a third that states an expert the did not complied to the letter with the NFPA 921’s recommendations in conducting his cause and origin investigation did not indicate his testimony was not reliable, to me is sufficient to suggest they would not ruled this way had they applied NFPA 921 as the standard of care for fire investigations.
By the way I understand there is some case law in Canada that follows along these lines. Pat, do away with the smoke and mirrors and stay with facts. These facts are the courts are going in every direction and no one knows where they will settle. Neither one of us is completely right or completely wrong.
All I am doing is supplying factual information for others to consider. I am not saying I want them to agree with me, just review all the facts and make their own informed decision. What is wrong with that?
The second case I mention stated that the plaintiffs suggested that because the report of the company’s expert did not contain evidence that he used the methodology set forth in NFPA 921, his opinions were therefore unreliable. The court disagreed and allowed the investigator to testify.
A third case I just found said while XXXXX may not have complied to the letter with the NFPA recommendations in conducting his cause and origin investigation, he still employed, in this Court's view, the requisite level of "intellectual rigor" that is demanded of experts in the field of fire cause and origin investigations. The Court accordingly concludes that XXXXXX proffered testimony relating to the cause and origin of the fire is reliable and satisfies the first part of the Rule 702/Daubert test.
I can see where you would say these posts do not make sense. Just as you use words such as “Benchmark” and “The Gold Standard” to infer all the cases you mention are really say that 921 is the standard of care for fire investigations, I am saying there are courts with a different opinion. The fact that one finds NFPA 921 is not exhaustive or exclusive, another finds that just because there is nothing in the expert’s report to suggest he used the methodology set forth in NFPA 921 does not suggest that his opinions are unreliable, and a third that states an expert the did not complied to the letter with the NFPA 921’s recommendations in conducting his cause and origin investigation did not indicate his testimony was not reliable, to me is sufficient to suggest they would not ruled this way had they applied NFPA 921 as the standard of care for fire investigations.
By the way I understand there is some case law in Canada that follows along these lines. Pat, do away with the smoke and mirrors and stay with facts. These facts are the courts are going in every direction and no one knows where they will settle. Neither one of us is completely right or completely wrong.
All I am doing is supplying factual information for others to consider. I am not saying I want them to agree with me, just review all the facts and make their own informed decision. What is wrong with that?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.