Responses to Question Student 1 Liability is something that is in the minds of leaders throughout the United States on a daily basis. From a personal perspective, I am aware of what my subordinates are doing that has increased danger levels and ensure that they are properly trained in anything that could potentially cause them or someone else harm. Incident commanders have a similar responsibility to ensure that they are not violating any laws or regulations. Understanding these laws and regulations is the first step for an incident commander to ensure that their subordinates and themselves are not violating them and that they are being safe in doing so. When focusing on hazardous materials, the same holds true. With that being said, one of these laws is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This specific law/regulation states, “No person shall be liable under this subchapter for costs or damages as a result of actions taken or omitted in the course of rendering care, assistance, or advice in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) or a the direction of an OnScene Coordinator appointed under such plan, with respect to an incident creating a danger to public health or welfare or the environment as a result of any releases of a hazardous substance or the threat thereof” (Makris, 1999). This and the “Good Samaritan” laws essentially allow an incident commander free reign to conduct their job and duties during an emergency incident without the possibility of lash back and from being sued. However, if an incident commander were to conduct their duties immorally or their action negligently resulted in the loss of life, I do believe they should be subject to an investigation to see if they have done anything illegal. Makris, J. (1999, September 17). UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Letter to Randolph G. Laye]. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. Paul Student 2 Good Morning Class, Understanding that liability can often be an issue in the wake of hazardous materials events and potentially so too, in hazardous materials response, how do you think such awareness might impact your decision making as a prospective incident commander? This week’s lesson made it all too evident that we live in a very litigious society. I should have assumed there were so many law suites but I had previously not thought about incident response in that manner. I think this increased awareness is both good and bad. The intent (although not always) is to ensure proper response, calibrated equipment, trained teams, with sound SOP are responding to events. If all of this holds true then even in the face of a lawsuit the department has a sound defense and can defend their actions. The down side to this is second guessing yourself and the decisions you make throughout the incident with the threat of a lawsuit and preventing timely decisions being made. The decisions have to be made in order for an effective response to be made (even when only having limited information on the scenario) and these decisions may affect the outcome in a drastic way. When human life is held on the decisions being made, the decisions need to be from sound judgment and experience. The lifesaving equipment needs to be in tip top condition to ensure no gear malfunctions. Can you be held civilly or criminally responsible as an Incident Commander for actions undertaken in a hazardous materials response incident? Under what circumstances might personal / professional liability be in question? The “god Samaritan” act in CERCLA provides a certain level of protection to first responders. A responder cannot be held liable for financial or physical damages due to actions taken while providing care. If the circumstance is under review due to negligence, then the incident commander may be held liable for the actions undertaken. Negligence can be from lacking the training to command the type of incident, not following or establishing sound SOP’s for response, and equipment maintenance. If any of these factors can be brought up and verified then the IC may be at fault and liable for the damages. Trent
Purchase answer to see full attachment