Fireman's Rule: Does It Apply To Police Officers?

The Fireman's Rule is a common law or statutory restriction on tort actions by public safety officials. It bars lawsuits by firefighters, police officers, and, in some jurisdictions, all government safety professionals from collecting damages that occur in the course of their duties, even in cases of clear negligence by other parties. The rule originated over a hundred years ago and is based on the assumption of risk, namely that public safety officers willingly accept the risks inherent to their professional duties. While the rule is named after firefighters, it applies to police officers as well, and other professional rescuers. In California, for example, the Fireman's Rule extends to police officers, barring them from bringing civil action against someone for an injury that occurred in the line of duty. However, there are exceptions to the rule, such as when the injury-producing harm was caused by an intentional act or when the conduct occurs after the person knows or should have known of the presence of the public safety officer.

Fireman's Rule bars police from suing individuals whose negligence caused their injuries

The Fireman's Rule is a common law or statutory restriction on tort actions by public safety officials. It bars lawsuits by firefighters, police officers, and, in some jurisdictions, all government safety professionals from collecting damages that occur in the course of their duties, even in cases of clear negligence by other parties. The rule is based on the assumption that public safety officers willingly accept the risks inherent to their professional duties. This means that since the purpose of public safety professionals is to confront danger, the public is not liable for injuries incurred while carrying out that function.

The Fireman's Rule has been criticised for preventing police officers from suing individuals whose negligence caused their injuries. For example, in the case of high-speed car chases initiated by criminals, police officers are unable to sue the criminals for any injuries sustained during the chase. However, some states have enacted exceptions to the Fireman's Rule, such as California, which passed Civil Code Section 1714.9 in 1982. This law overrides the Fireman's Rule when the tortious conduct occurred after the defendant knew or should have known of the plaintiff's presence.

In certain states, such as Pennsylvania, the courts have not always strictly applied the Fireman's Rule. For instance, in 1995, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that firefighters are owed the same duty of care as any citizen permitted to be on the property when it comes to landowners. This means that landowners are responsible for warning firefighters of any dangerous hidden conditions on the premises.

While the Fireman's Rule remains an important concept in the legal system, it has been criticised as outdated and unfair to emergency responders, depriving them of the ability to recover damages and costs from negligent parties. Some states have eliminated the rule entirely, while others have applied exceptions to allow emergency responders to sue under certain circumstances.

The rule is based on the assumption that public safety officers willingly accept the risks inherent to their duties

The Fireman's Rule (or Firefighter's Rule) is a common law or statutory restriction on tort actions by public safety officials. The rule bars public safety officers, including firefighters and police officers, from suing or collecting damages from individuals whose negligence caused or contributed to an emergency incident that led to their injury or death. The principal reason for this rule is the assumption that public safety officers willingly accept the risks inherent to their professional duties.

The Fireman's Rule is based on the idea that public safety officers, such as firefighters and police officers, are employed for the benefit and protection of society as a whole. They are trained and hired to confront dangerous situations and are expected to face particular dangers as part of their job duties. Therefore, it is assumed that they willingly accept the risks associated with their profession.

The rule originated over a hundred years ago and has been reaffirmed by the vast majority of courts, despite criticism and changes in other areas of the law. The rationale behind the rule is that since public safety officers are aware of the risks and voluntarily assume them, they are in the best position to prevent their own injuries. Additionally, allowing citizens to be sued by public safety officers may discourage them from calling for help, leading to delayed responses and potentially more casualties and property damage.

However, it's important to note that the Fireman's Rule has been heavily criticised for being unfair to emergency responders, depriving them of the ability to recover damages and costs from negligent parties. In response to this criticism, some states have adopted exceptions to the rule, such as California's Civil Code Section 1714.9, which allows civil lawsuits by police and firefighters in certain circumstances, such as when the harm was caused by an intentional act or when the conduct occurs after the person knows or should have known of the presence of the public safety officer.

The rule has been criticised for preventing police from suing criminals who lead them on high-speed chases

The Fireman's Rule (or Firefighter's Rule) is a common-law or statutory restriction on tort actions by public safety officials. The rule bars lawsuits by police officers and other public safety professionals from collecting damages that occur in the course of their duties, even in cases of clear negligence by other parties. The principal reason for the rule is the assumption that public safety officers willingly accept the risks inherent to their professional duties.

The dangers of high-speed police chases have been well-documented. Since 1979, thousands of innocent bystanders and passengers have been killed in police car chases in the United States, and tens of thousands more have been injured. The Justice Department has recognised the danger of high-speed chases and has urged police departments to adopt policies listing exactly when officers can and cannot pursue someone. However, many police departments still allow officers to make on-the-spot judgments about whether to chase a suspect, and officers continue to violate pursuit policies.

The Fireman's Rule has been abolished in some states, such as Oregon and New Jersey, as it is considered outdated and unfair to emergency responders. In states that still recognise the rule, various exceptions have been created to allow emergency responders to sue under certain circumstances, such as when the person's conduct was willful, wanton, or intentional, or when the injury was the result of a hidden trap.

The rule does not allow for the nuances of the job, and can result in injustice for public safety officers

The Fireman's Rule, also known as the Firefighter's Rule, is a common-law or statutory restriction on tort actions by public safety officials. The rule bars public safety officers, including firefighters and police officers, from collecting damages that occur in the course of their duties, even in cases of negligence by other parties. While the rule is named after firefighters, it applies similarly to all public safety officers due to the inherent relationship between their jobs and danger.

The Fireman's Rule has faced significant criticism for its failure to account for the nuances of public safety officers' jobs and the potential injustice it can cause. One of the main issues with the rule is that it prevents police officers from suing criminals who intentionally lead them on high-speed car chases or cause them harm through other negligent or intentional acts. This can result in an injustice for public safety officers, as they are left without legal recourse for injuries or harm suffered in the line of duty.

The rule operates on the assumption that public safety officers willingly accept the risks inherent in their professional duties. However, this assumption does not consider the complex nature of their work and the various scenarios in which they may be harmed. For example, a firefighter may respond to a chemical boilover at a plant, where the owner misrepresents the presence of toxic chemicals, exposing the firefighter to dangerous substances. In such a case, the Fireman's Rule would prevent the firefighter from taking civil action against the owner for their negligence or misconduct.

Another issue with the Fireman's Rule is that it can create a conflict of interest. Often, the person responsible for creating the dangerous condition faces no consequences for their actions, leaving the first responder in a vulnerable position. This can significantly limit the economic recovery options available to public safety officers, who may be forced to rely solely on the Workers' Compensation system.

In recognition of these issues, some states, including California, have enacted exceptions to the Fireman's Rule. For instance, California Civil Code Section 1714.9 allows civil lawsuits by police and firefighters when the harm was caused by an intentional act or when the conduct occurs after the person knows or should have known of the presence of the public safety officer. These exceptions aim to address the injustices of the Fireman's Rule and provide public safety officers with legal recourse in certain situations.

Exceptions to the rule include when the injury was caused by intentional, malicious, or reckless acts

The Fireman's Rule is a common-law or statutory restriction on tort actions by public safety officials. It bars lawsuits by firefighters, police officers, and, in some jurisdictions, all government safety professionals from collecting damages that occur in the course of their duties, even in cases of clear negligence by other parties.

In the case of Carson v. Headrick, the court held that the Fireman's Rule did not bar recovery by police officers who were shot by a husband while escorting his wife to their family home to pick up her belongings. The court found that the wife's failure to warn of the danger from her husband was an intentional, malicious, or reckless act that fell within the exception to the rule.

In addition to intentional, malicious, or reckless acts, other exceptions to the Fireman's Rule include when the injury is the result of a hidden trap, a violation of a law enacted to protect public safety officials, or the failure of the owner/occupier of a property to warn of a known danger.

Frequently asked questions