1. Can someone tell me how a "standard of care" deals with unique or novel circumstances?


By defintion, a standard of care is a consensus, and cannot be at the leading edge. It is a trailing indicator of the state of any art. Standards define consensus. The standardization process will push a profession forward, but only if a significant number of professionals are already there.

2. Is it ever acceptable to deviate from a "standard of care"?

Sure, as long as you are prepared to justify why you did so.

3. Is the answer to this question outcome dependent? (Hypothetically, when I was new to EMS, we had "Air splints" for stabilizing fractures. It turns out that they also applied a fair amount of pressure over a large area and could be used to apply pressure to large bleeding injuries. If it saved the patient's life; it's an innovative, field expedient, improvised procedure. If the patient died; could it be argued that it was a breech of the standard of care and grossly incompetent and negligent?)

The use of the air splint would be something "not within the scope" of the standard of care, but unless the standard said "do not use air splints for pressure," or maybe "only use a device for its intended ourpose," then you were operating outside the standard, but not contrary to it.

4. If I failed to follow NFPA 921, but still came up with the "right" origin and cause, have I still violated the "standard of care"? If so, does that invalidate my finding?

Some answers are obvious, and even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally. If you can come up with the correct origin and cause without resorting to the scientific method, probably everyone else who looks at the fire will come up with the same answer. The question is moot. But your violation of the standard only invalidates your methdology, not your finding. Under Daubert, however, the judge is only supposed to consider methodology, so your correct finding may be tossed out.

5. Is it the methodology that is covered by the "standard of care" and not (necessarily) the opinion derived from the methodology - provided that it is consistent with the methodology?

Yes.

6. Is there anything wrong with accepting Chapter 4 (Basic Methodology) of NFPA 921 as the "standard" methodology without accepting the rest of the document as a "standard"?

Yes. Chapter 5 describes physical laws that cannot be broken. If you postulate a method of ignition or spread that is impossible, you have violated the standard of care, and probably come up with the wrong answer. Chapter 6 describes pattern development. If you "scientifically" opine that the fire is incendiary based on temperature determination, shiny alligators, narrow Vs, crazy glass or spalded concrete you have violated the standard of care, and probably come up with the wrong answer, even if you formulate your report along the lines of the scientific method. Chapter 4 defines form. The other chapters define content.

If your documentation (Chapter 15) is incomplete or faulty, you may scientifically come up with the wrong answer.

If you spoliate the scene (Chapter11), and fail to invite potentially interested parties in a civil case to view the scene, you may have the right answer, but the court will throw you out anyway.

If you don't pay attention to chapter 17, you may get the origin wrong.

There is a ton of information and guidance in other chapters in the document. If you chose to disregard that information or guidance, something bad could happen.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]