Log in to WRAL.com with one click using your favorite social network:
OR
Log in using your WRAL.com account:



Wrong email/password combination.

Forgot password?

Register with WRAL.com using your favorite social network:
OR
Register for a WRAL.com account using our web form.

7:09 a.m. • 5-19-13

Weather Forecast for Raleigh

  • Today: Thunderstorm.
    • Hi: 78° F
  • Mon: Thunderstorm.
    • Hi: 78° F
  • Tue: Thunderstorm.
    • Hi: 83° F

Other Locations

> 7 Day Forecast

Doppler Image

Comments :: Fatal Durham Hospital fire ruled accidental

Fatal Durham Hospital fire ruled accidental


Click here to return to the Story

6 Comments


WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

page 1
sort order: oldest first | newest first
"I take exception to headlines that fire killed the patient or that it was a fatal fire. If the staff were performing a defibrillation (versus a cardio version) then the patient by definition was already vital signs absent. This death is more aptly termed a failed resuscitation interrupted by a fire. jackcdneh1017"

I am sure your insightful analysis will greatly comfort the patent's friends and family. piene2

Actually piene2 the comment is very important. The family that your talking about will obviously sue the hospital and the actual cause of death will be key in that suit. Perhaps that is as big of a story as the original. Care to make an anti gun comment on this story?
NCHighlander
November 9, 2012 8:11 a.m.
[abuse] Report abuse
The word "accident" implies no willful intent....however EVERY "accident" is caused...yes, every single one...an "accident" does NOT mean there was NO negligence....!!!!
Click to view my profile SmokeWagon
November 8, 2012 5:07 p.m.
[abuse] Report abuse
the MythBusters TV show on DSC tested the 'fire' possibility. it *is* possible, but only if every-single-thing goes wrong.

LOL--as well as the mythbusters try to copy every action--there is always a envirornmental difference...and anything is possible at any given time....
ladyblue
November 8, 2012 4:08 p.m.
[abuse] Report abuse
An accident does not rule out negligence
Click to view my profile Bronco
November 8, 2012 4:07 p.m.
[abuse] Report abuse
the MythBusters TV show on DSC tested the 'fire' possibility. it *is* possible, but only if every-single-thing goes wrong.
turkeydance
November 8, 2012 3:38 p.m.
[abuse] Report abuse
I take exception to headlines that fire killed the patient or that it was a fatal fire. If the staff were performing a defibrillation (versus a cardio version) then the patient by definition was already vital signs absent. This death is more aptly termed a failed resuscitation interrupted by a fire.
jackcdneh1017
November 8, 2012 3:20 p.m.
[abuse] Report abuse
page 1
sort order: oldest first | newest first

Multimedia Spotlight

more