-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Station Night Club Fire
- Thread starter mark handler
- Start date
fatboy
Administrator
Tragic.......every Assembly use that argues that they don't need sprinklers should have to sit through this.
Fireworks on a stage in a crowded venue....how could they be that completely stupid?
Last edited:
There's no maybe about the drugs and I'm not talking about the crowd, although some of them Shirley should have known to flee as soon as the fireworks went off. I'm talking about the club owner, the band manager, anybody with any role in planning this disaster. Would they not have at least tried the fireworks in the parking lot before allowing them indoors? The place was on fire within seconds after the fireworks went off. They didn't just scream fire in a crowded theater....they started one.
This is from Wikipedia:
"A fire sprinkler system would have contained the fire long enough to give everyone time to exit safely. However, because of the building's age (built in 1946) and size (4,484 square feet) , many believed The Station to be exempt from sprinkler system requirements. In fact, the building had undergone an occupancy change when it was converted from a restaurant to a nightclub. This change dissolved its exemption from the law, a fact that West Warwick fire inspectors never noticed. On the night in question, The Station was legally required to have a sprinkler system but did not."
So the most blame goes to...the fire department.
Last edited:
Or the AHJ for not catching it when the new CofO was issued.
I’m not sure the pyrotechnics was to blame. (Yes that was the source of ignition, but used properly they are relatively safe). Bands use them indoors all the time. I think the contributing cause was the very flammable foam on the walls, and low ceiling height, and the confined space. The report said the pyros on the sides that were aimed off-vertical were the cause, their sparks impacted the side walls.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Don't blame the drugs and alcohol....Those people were dumb before that....First time I have heard about the occupancy change....
Building Construction
and Occupancy
The building that contained The Station night- club was constructed in approximately 1946. The structure was utilized as a restaurant, tav- ern, and nightclub under various owners. Numerous renovations and repairs were com- pleted on the building in the time since con- struction.
A fire damaged the club in March of 1972. The building remained closed until November 1974, when repairs were completed on the fire dam- age. At this point the building was converted
from a club into a restaurant, and reopened. In February 1985, a change of ownership occurred and the facility was converted once again to a “pub” According to records, in 1991 the facility was converted to nightclub use.
https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/...igations/case_study_nightclub_fires.pdf?la=en
and Occupancy
The building that contained The Station night- club was constructed in approximately 1946. The structure was utilized as a restaurant, tav- ern, and nightclub under various owners. Numerous renovations and repairs were com- pleted on the building in the time since con- struction.
A fire damaged the club in March of 1972. The building remained closed until November 1974, when repairs were completed on the fire dam- age. At this point the building was converted
from a club into a restaurant, and reopened. In February 1985, a change of ownership occurred and the facility was converted once again to a “pub” According to records, in 1991 the facility was converted to nightclub use.
https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/...igations/case_study_nightclub_fires.pdf?la=en
town officials, most notably Larocque, who inspected the club at least three times in the months before the fire and never cited the foam as a fire hazard.
Larocque, a broad man with a thick, graying moustache, had a reputation for being a tough fire inspector. A career firefighter who became the local fire marshal five years earlier, he noticed code infractions and didn’t hesitate to report them, even in businesses owned by friends like Laboissonniere.
When investigators first questioned Larocque about the foam, days after the Feb. 20, 2003, fire, he said he didn’t see it because he had been blinded by anger after seeing that an illegal door he had ordered removed had been reinstalled.
That door, which swung inward instead of outward -- a potential safety impediment in an emergency -- had the flammable gray, egg-crate-shaped foam glued to its interior side.
Four months later, in June 2003, Larocque told grand jurors that he never saw the foam because he was not doing a “full building code-compliance” inspection.
Larocque said his trips to the nightclub were for the renewal of the club’s annual liquor license. Those inspections focused primarily on the “four E’s ... That’s extinguishers, emergency lighting, exit signs and egress. These are inspections geared toward those basic items.”
But some grand jurors seemed dissatisfied with his explanation. One asked how Larocque could have missed the foam because it covered one side of that door he was so angry about.
“The door itself, again, shouldn’t have been there, number one, so I’m not really focusing on what’s on the door,” Larocque said. “My inspection at that time is what I said earlier, was -- it’s a basic fire safety inspection.”
“But if you see another potential hazard” -- the grand juror tried to continue before a prosecutor interjected and the conversation veered in another direction.
Larocque, now 56, was never charged with any crime. Prosecutors said it would be irresponsible to name him as a potential defendant because no reasonable person could find that he acted in bad faith or with malice, two ingredients required under state law to find a public employee liable for actions on the job.
Larocque, a broad man with a thick, graying moustache, had a reputation for being a tough fire inspector. A career firefighter who became the local fire marshal five years earlier, he noticed code infractions and didn’t hesitate to report them, even in businesses owned by friends like Laboissonniere.
When investigators first questioned Larocque about the foam, days after the Feb. 20, 2003, fire, he said he didn’t see it because he had been blinded by anger after seeing that an illegal door he had ordered removed had been reinstalled.
That door, which swung inward instead of outward -- a potential safety impediment in an emergency -- had the flammable gray, egg-crate-shaped foam glued to its interior side.
Four months later, in June 2003, Larocque told grand jurors that he never saw the foam because he was not doing a “full building code-compliance” inspection.
Larocque said his trips to the nightclub were for the renewal of the club’s annual liquor license. Those inspections focused primarily on the “four E’s ... That’s extinguishers, emergency lighting, exit signs and egress. These are inspections geared toward those basic items.”
But some grand jurors seemed dissatisfied with his explanation. One asked how Larocque could have missed the foam because it covered one side of that door he was so angry about.
“The door itself, again, shouldn’t have been there, number one, so I’m not really focusing on what’s on the door,” Larocque said. “My inspection at that time is what I said earlier, was -- it’s a basic fire safety inspection.”
“But if you see another potential hazard” -- the grand juror tried to continue before a prosecutor interjected and the conversation veered in another direction.
Larocque, now 56, was never charged with any crime. Prosecutors said it would be irresponsible to name him as a potential defendant because no reasonable person could find that he acted in bad faith or with malice, two ingredients required under state law to find a public employee liable for actions on the job.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Or was the foam added after the Occupancy inspection.
And I will bet the AHJ had no idea Pyrotechnics were going to be used, of the exit doors were going to be locked.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Bad writing.....An "added" door was a problem?
ADAguy
Registered User
"added" or merely reswung? Did it have panic hardware before the re-swing? That should have been a giveaway.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
The Derderians bought the club in 2000, whereas the foam allegedly manufactured by Sealed Air was installed in 1996. Sealed Air deny any wrongdoing, saying it was never proven that they indeed manufactured the foam and that the foam was being misused as soundproofing in any event.
i realize that its a common tactic to sue everyone involved, but how could sealed air be guilty as a contributor? Unless the buyer stated on the order form that the6 intended to use it as open sound proofing ... the seller has no control over what the buyer does with it.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
That is if the foam is being used for something instead of its intended purpose. If the manufacturer stated this was an acceptable use on their literature, they would obviously be liable for some form of damages.
TheCommish
Registered User
The book "The Killer Show" by John Barylick a lawyer who work on behave of the victims is a must read for all code enforcement officials. The story of who what when and why of the building and the events is well told.