Thread: Arson suspect sued
10-24-2006, 04:55 AM #1
Arson suspect sued
Interesting...to say the least...
RUTLAND, Vt. (AP) - A man already facing arson charges in two
apartment house fires now is being sued by the city's insurance
company, which says the blazes damaged a fire truck.
Robert Vandriel has pleaded innocent to setting the fires in May
of 2005, which destroyed an apartment and badly damaged another
building across the street.
Now the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Property and Casualty
Insurance Fund has filed suit in Rutland Superior Court against
Court records say Vandriel told police he admitted setting the
two fires after drinking beer and taking drugs.
The lawsuit says Vandriel "negligently or intentionally" set
the fires and that heat from them caused $56,168 in damage to a
city fire truck.
The insurance company paid the city that amount, minus a $500
deductible. It is seeking to recover its payment, plus interest and
The suit says heat from the fires damaged the city fleet's
largest ladder truck, Engine 1, melting seals on the front axles,
breaking the windshield and another window and burning out its
The truck was out of commission for six weeks, and was repaired
in Pennsylvania, where it was made.
"We're really not involved" in the lawsuit, city Fire Chief
Robert Schlachter said, "other than the fact I'm sure we'll be
called to testify if it winds up going there."
Vandriel, who is being held at the Rutland jail on $25,000 bail,
could get up to 20 years in prison if convicted of both arson
Information from: Rutland Herald, http://www.rutlandherald.com/
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Last edited by NJFFSA16; 10-24-2006 at 04:58 AM.Proudly serving as the IACOJ Minister of Information & Propoganda!
Be Safe! Lookouts-Awareness-Communications-Escape Routes-Safety Zones
*Gathering Crust Since 1968*
On the web at www.section2wildfire.com
10-24-2006, 05:23 AM #2
Good! They should go after these scumbags for restitution of any damages caused as a result of their actions.
10-24-2006, 05:27 AM #3
Last edited by Chauffer6; 10-24-2006 at 05:29 AM. Reason: double post!
10-24-2006, 09:31 AM #4Originally Posted by NJFFSA16
Originally Posted by NJFFSA16
Last edited by voyager9; 10-24-2006 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Fix formatting
10-24-2006, 09:48 AM #5
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
[QUOTE=voyager9]IANAL, but don't you have to be found guilty of the criminal case before you can be subject to the civil one? How can you sue someone for damages caused by something they haven't been convicted of doing yet? Don't get me wrong, if he's guilty go after him for everything he's got. It just seems a little premature.
Just ask OJ. He wasn't convicted but they still won in civil court.
10-24-2006, 09:57 AM #6Originally Posted by voyager9
As REVANANT pointed out, OJ was acquitted of murder but still found responsible in a civil trial.
The burden of proof in a civil trial is much lower than what is required to get a criminal conviction. In a criminal action, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in civil court usually all you have to prove is a prepondernace of the evidence. In other words, 'this guy most likely did it' won't cut it in a criminal trial but could be good enough in a civil suit.
10-24-2006, 10:04 AM #7
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
Not at allOriginally Posted by voyager9
10-24-2006, 10:08 AM #8
Anyone want to bet the first person called to testify will be the driver...and the first question asked...."Why did you park so close as to burn your firetruck?" Second question...."Aren't you trained to keep your apparatus safe?". And then a bunch of "experts" from around the country will be called to testify about safe parking distances and crap...all "theoretical" of course and not real world practices.
Sad part is, the Insurance company will lose....and then sue the driver of the truck for endangering it."This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?
10-24-2006, 12:01 PM #9
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
If the fire was hot enough to do that much damage to the truck, I have to wonder about the integrity of the equipment ON the truck.
Bonesy: the lawyer won't stop at suing the driver of the fire apparatus.
They'll sue the training officers, the drivers' license bureau, the chief of the department, the trustees of the department, the apparatus manufacturer for defective paint, the city for narrow streets and last of all , he'll sue the firefighter's parents for HAVING him!
Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)
10-24-2006, 09:05 PM #10
Originally Posted by Bones42
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
Here's the next big question if he is convicted and is in jail how is he gonna pay back the damages? if you figure it up, let's say while he is in jail he does do the work around there, and let's say he is working at minimum wage, let's see that would take almost 11,000 hrs ( or almost 459 day's of working 24 hrs. a day!!!) of work just to pay back the damages!
10-24-2006, 09:41 PM #11Originally Posted by voyager9
Originally Posted by Bones42Originally Posted by ThNozzleMan
I A C O J
Honorary Disclaimer: While I am a manufacturer representative, I am not here to sell my product. Any advice or knowledge shared is for informational purposes only. I do not use Firehouse.Com for promotional purposes.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By mtnfireguy in forum Fire InvestigationReplies: 2Last Post: 02-25-2006, 06:46 PM
By abarker in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 18Last Post: 11-08-2004, 10:52 AM
By mtnfireguy in forum Wildland FirefightingReplies: 0Last Post: 08-07-2003, 07:16 PM
By Firebug030 in forum Fire WireReplies: 0Last Post: 11-17-2002, 11:41 AM
By Funkyfire13 in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 265Last Post: 11-07-2002, 02:58 PM