 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Farmer v. B & G Food Enterprises6/6/2002
hich require special training and experience that prepares the trainee to provide assistance under dangerous emergency conditions. Pinter v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 613 N.W.2d 110, 115 (Wis. 2000). The public policy behind the Firefighter's Rule was ably express by the Pinter court:
We are convinced that the public policy analysis in Hass remains sound. It is still true that nearly all fires are caused by negligence. It is therefore still true that permitting firefighters to pursue negligence actions based on the negligent act of starting a fire would place an unreasonable burden on the owners and occupiers of premises and would enter a field with no sensible or just stopping point.
Fundamentally, the rule recognized in Hass is an expression of public policy because it prohibits a firefighter from "complaining about the negligence that creates the very need for his or her employment." Id. at 117 (citations omitted) (quoting Mignone v. Fieldcrest Mills, 556 A.2d 35, 39 (R.I. 1989).
The Supreme Court of Hawaii has also spoken to this policy:
The very purpose of the fire fighting profession is to confront danger. Fire fighters are hired, trained, and compensated to deal with dangerous situations that are often caused by negligent conduct or acts. " t offends public policy to say that a citizen invites private liability merely because he happens to create a need for those public services." Thomas v. Pang, 811 P.2d 821, 825 (Hawaii 1991) (quoting Pottenbaum v. Hinds, 347 N.W.2d 642, 645 (Iowa 1984)).
. Although frequently the salary paid to rescue personnel is not proportional to the duties performed, it is absurd to place the burden of ensuring their safety and care, while doing their job , upon the public they are engaged to protect. This is so because the salary and benefits paid to rescue personnel come from public funds. However, instead of adopting the version of the Firefighter's Rule adopted by the majority, I find public policy to weigh in favor of adopting for Mississippi a version of the Firefighter's Rule advocated by commentator Margaret Fonshell Ward. Apart from certain limitations, rescue personnel should not be permitted to recover for those injuries incurred while performing their duties. As suggested by Ward:
Application of the fireman's rule should be subject to limitations for instances in which the potential defendant 1) acted with willful, wanton, or intentional conduct. . .; 2) had a knowledge of the condition, and deliberately failed to take an opportunity to warn the officer; 3) negligently created or maintained an extraordinary, rare, and uncommon hazard; or 4) unleashed an active dangerous force on the premises after the officer's arrival and with knowledge of his presence. Margaret Fonshell Ward, Clearing the Smoke Around the Fireman's Rule, 34 M. B.J. 48, 53 (June 2001).
. The Ward version of the Firefighter's Rule would preclude Farmer's claim for damages as his injury was caused by the fight between Clayton Brunson and the Taco Bell employee, Daniel Magee, the original reason to call for Farmer's assistance. None of the proposed limitations to the rule apply in this instance. Therefore, I concur in affirming the trial court's judgment, but I would abolish the licensee/invitee distinction and adopt the Ward version of the Firefighter's Rule.
DIAZ, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
McRAE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, DISSENTING
. We live in a time when the heroic deeds firefighters and police officers perform for the citizens of this state and this country have become manifest. These acts of valor cannot be better highlighted than by the tragic events that occurred last
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|