Five years later, a helicopter pilot looks back on a flight over the fire damage in Gatlinburg
Brian Walker of Sevier County Aviation flew with Knox News over Gatlinburg the morning after the deadly 2016 fires. Five years later, he reflects on what he saw and felt during the flight that morning.
Brianna Paciorka, Knoxville News Sentinel
Survivors of the Gatlinburg wildfires may now have another chance to hold the National Park Service accountable after a federal appeals court ruled in a separate but related case brought by insurance companies.
Federal courts have long ruled that Great Smoky Mountains National Park officials cannot be sued for the way they fought the devastating 2016 wildfire that killed 14 people. But in June, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the idea that the Park Service’s firefighting actions were immune from lawsuits.
The decision offers new hope to the families of 12 of the 14 victims, who had sued the government because park officials failed to adequately warn surrounding communities about the fire, which had been raging for five days before it spread beyond the park’s boundaries.
Here is what we learned from the recent statement.
What did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals say?
Put simply, the insurance claim report focuses on the steps park officials took to combat the wildfire, including the structure of park management and the actions of Fire Chief Greg Salansky.
A district court had previously ruled that Salansky had the authority to fight the wildfire as he saw fit, effectively granting him immunity from any decisions that could cause harm.
The Sixth Circuit dissented in a 2-1 decision.
Salansky served as fire safety officer, incident commander and duty officer, as described in the initial analysis of the fire. According to federal regulations and the park’s manual, he should have served in only one of those roles.
This fact opens up the possibility of assigning blame, the judges wrote.
“Paramilitary organizations such as response teams, emergency medical services, and fire departments all follow a mandatory command structure and chain of command (e.g., sergeant, captain, chief),” wrote U.S. District Judge Danny Boggs. “Here, the distinction between the duties of FMO, IC, and DO is part of the mandatory command structure that federal agencies must follow when fighting wildfires.”
What does the Gatlinburg fire ordinance mean?
The report does not automatically hold the park responsible, but it does mean that the lawsuit filed by the insurance companies can proceed.
The decision could also strengthen the families’ lawsuit. Their lawsuit originally contained similar allegations of mismanagement, but those were dropped.
The victims could amend their lawsuit to re-examine Salansky’s actions and firefighting in the park.
Failure to warn remains
Both lawsuits allege that the park service failed to follow its own policy of warning surrounding communities.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a previous ruling allowing these charges to stand.
The families’ lawsuit and the Park Service’s own investigation report after the fire “describe in detail a chain of events in which the park’s alleged failures to monitor and extinguish the fire were linked to park communications failures,” wrote U.S. District Judge Helene White.
This argument must be re-heard in district court.
The problem?
Numerous obstacles remain, any one of which could derail victims’ fight to include their fire safety claims in their lawsuit.
An attorney for the families, Gordon Ball, dropped all claims against fire officials early on and focused solely on the failure to warn. Ball was eventually sued by a group of plaintiffs over his decision.
Courts typically do not allow dropped cases to be reopened, and it is not clear whether that is possible now.
Regardless, the government has the option to file a review of the judges’ decision. It could trigger a new hearing and bring the matter before all 16 judges of the Sixth Circuit for consideration, especially since the three-judge panel that decided the appeal was not unanimous.
The government could also appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tyler Whetstone is an investigative reporter focused on responsible journalism. Contact Tyler via email at [email protected]. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @tyler_whetstone.
Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.
