Hot embers in outside bucket sparked Ross home fire
Smoldering embers in an ash bucket started a fire that severely damaged a family of four's home in Ross last week, a fire marshal said on Wednesday.
No one was hurt in the blaze, which started on Friday morning under a deck behind the two-story Lilac Avenue home.
Ross fire Marshal John Reubi said hot ashes from a wood burner in the home were placed in a metal bucket under the steps of the deck on Thursday morning. A southerly wind likely blew sparks or an ember from the bucket into a combustible foam-and-vinyl punching bag near the house. The punching bag and the deck, which was made of a composite material, caught fire. Flames quickly spread behind a sliding glass door between the deck and living room to the rest of the house.
Residents Jeff Heyl and Kim Riddle with children Krissy, 11, and Kevin, 8, escaped safely after a neighbor warned them the house was on fire.
“The hot ashes remain hot for days on end,” Reubi said. “You have to watch what you do with them.”
Reubi said the composite decking material “burned readily.”
The home is insured but likely will be condemned. The cause of the blaze was ruled accidental.
West View Savings Bank established a fund to help the family. Donations made out to Jeff Heyl or Kim Riddle can be mailed to West View Savings, 9001 Perry Highway, Pittsburgh, PA 15237, attn: Lori Ross.
Jeremy Boren is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7935 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.