if THEY TRIED and failed, wouldn't that open them up for litigation?So both doing nothing or doing something and possibly failing are standards of due diligence and not to be considered negligence? How is this possible? Are the good people of Tennessee expected to pay for essential fire fighting services and then get a department that's playing Hamlet with emergencies?In that case the fire department committed gross negligence. They knew a nearby house was on fire. They should have known the risk of that fire spreading. They were, after all, trained as fire fighters. They failed in their job to contain the fire. Because you said that was the reason they were there. How then did they do their job other than poorly and shamefully?
There's also the possibility that they could have failed at putting out the man's house if they tried. What's your point?
"To douse, or not to douse? That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to aid my neighbor, or take five, and watch the fire spread?"