Photo by Vince Fedoroff
GUTTED – The fire referenced in the litigation destroyed this Takhini Mobile Park residence in August 2016.
Fire department acted appropriately, city argues
The City of Whitehorse has responded to a lawsuit over a fire that gutted a mobile home late last summer.
The City of Whitehorse has responded to a lawsuit over a fire that gutted a mobile home late last summer.
The city recently filed a statement of defence denying all allegations in the suit launched by Tynan Aubichon last month in the Supreme Court of Yukon.
The claims come from a small electrical fire that started at the home in the Takhini Mobile Park at around 4:30 p.m. on Aug. 20, 2016.
The suit alleges the city breached the duty of care owed to Aubichon by not reasonably taking steps to ensure that fire hydrants were operable, had sufficient resources, and were compliant with bylaws and codes.
It also claims these breaches amounted to gross negligence and caused or contributed to the destruction of the property.
The suit claims general and special damages as well as interests and costs.
In its response, the city alleges the claim is not actionable. It argues its employees acted on fire protection and prevention services policy based on financial, economic, social and political factors or constraints.
It also denies that it owed a duty of care, and that if it did, it discharged that duty in a “reasonable, prudent, and competent manner.”
As well, the city denies causing or contributing to any loss, damage or expense that Aubichon may have incurred. It adds that Aubichon failed to take any reasonable steps to mitigate that loss.
The city is asking for the suit to be dismissed with costs.
According to court documents, the Whitehorse Fire Department arrived within five minutes after receiving the report of the blaze, with two pump trucks.
Firefighters exhausted the water supply in one of the trucks and did not connect to the second truck.
Firefighters then connected one of the trucks to surrounding fire hydrants – but there was an inadequate water supply and pressure flowing.
According to the claim, this resulted in a delay of about 20 minutes before there was sufficient water to suppress or extinguish the blaze.
This enabled the fire to spread, leading to the complete destruction of the property, the suit claims.
The lawsuit claims Aubichon suffered economic losses from the destruction of the property, fees imposed by the Takhini Mobile Park for clean-up from the damage, and pad fees charged by the mobile park after the property was destroyed.
The claims have not been heard in court.
Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (12)
Up 0 Down 0
Ryu on Nov 21, 2017 at 2:42 pm
I was a witness to this event. There was no water provided for over half an hour at the initial burn onset. This poor guy had to watch everything he worked for go up in smoke because the city couldn't provide the basic resource that they collect taxes for. It is up to the municipality to provide water period... extremely sad. You most definitely have a case against the city and you are fighting for all of us out here.
Up 5 Down 2
woodcutter on Jun 27, 2017 at 4:59 pm
There is no requirement for an homeowner to have insurance, unless dictated by your mortgage company. If indeed you have insurance, don't sit there feeling your covered and safe, because your not. Your home will burn to the ground, and you're thinking you're covered, however the adjuster will get there and say: Gee your house is 20 plus years old, we need to make an adjustment, you had wood siding, adjustment, you were at the lake for 3 days and the fire happened. Adjustment. Here is what we give you for your house, rebuild by this time or we will give you the cash settlement value, usually much less.
As an insurance broker once told me, "Insurance companies have office towers full of lawyers trying to figure out why you should not be covered. "
So all you sitting there smugly, thinking your house is covered and you won't be in this position, your not.
Good luck, I think you have a case.
Up 6 Down 0
Another Yukoner on Jun 27, 2017 at 3:33 pm
@ Yukon 56- It's hard to believe it's going on 36 years since that trailer fire that claimed Peter and Jerry's lives. It seems like yesterday...
Up 19 Down 1
CJ on Jun 26, 2017 at 11:18 am
A fire hydrant that can't provide water seems hard to defend. Bit of an eye opener. I don't know why everyone is so sure he doesn't have insurance, but on the other hand, how convenient that a neglected fire hydrant is located in a neighbourhood where people might struggle to get insurance. An insurance company's lawyers could put up a formidable argument that part of a city's responsibilities are to look after those hydrants. Whether it would have saved the building or not is probably irrelevant.
Up 16 Down 1
ProScience Greenie on Jun 25, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Lack of enough water in the hydrant is the big red flag in this story. Any reports / investigation done by CofW to explain to the voting and taxpaying public about such a dangerous situation?
Up 33 Down 1
Roger on Jun 25, 2017 at 4:07 am
I'm sure fault is spread around on this one. While I think it maybe rests primarily with the one who may have allowed the property to decline to that point (and perhaps not have insurance)
But as much as I want to be on the cities side on this one. I don't believe it is unfair to expect fire hydrants to be operational. Imagine if this was worse...gosh forbid with children in the home....saying fiscal responsibilities as an excuse wouldn't cut the cake. Are the hydrants outside my house part of the fiscally affected units? How about my children's school? Fire, ambulance, and police protection are basic services....maybe save some money on rainbow paint and make sure fire hydrants work.
Up 17 Down 2
Politico on Jun 24, 2017 at 4:21 pm
The main threat the city uses when faced with litigation is to threaten to sue for cost. They're not interested in solving the issue or find the problem, no. They admit no fault and sue for costs. And in the end the results are usually kept secret so the same mistakes can be made over and over again. Brilliant business plan.
Up 19 Down 1
yukon56 on Jun 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm
A mobile will burn to the ground in less than 15 minutes. I recall the fire in Swift River that took the life of my friend Peter Adams
Up 21 Down 2
At home in the Yukon on Jun 24, 2017 at 3:19 pm
I sure hope there's enough water in my local fire hydrant. A fire hydrant without adequate water supply is a promise of protection without delivery.
Up 21 Down 6
Jz on Jun 24, 2017 at 2:08 pm
It's the duty of the home owner to have adequate insurance to cover such an situation.
Up 6 Down 8
Josey Wales on Jun 24, 2017 at 10:16 am
The nobles cleared their crews, imagine that?
The Americans should give CoW the JFK files, they could solve that mystery in mere seconds with the team they have....
Not speaking on this particular event, but generally the CoW is the absolute best at deflecting any spore of responsibility for how this PC theme park is run.
We have a team of arrogance within most that feel we need governing Vs. the representing of the citizens whom elected them...consequently the appointed positions too.
There I responded to a CoW response to gasp....criticism via lawsuit.
Still have yet to read of the firing of yet another civic blowhole feeding from our trough?
Shame I am dirt poor, or there would be.
Up 34 Down 6
jc on Jun 23, 2017 at 9:33 pm
It appears the owner didn't have house insurance and now is trying to collect for his losses.