Emergency and Disaster Management Law

Emergency and disaster management law is an extremely important aspect of the legal system. The purpose of this discussion is to describe the history, present status, and future of the "Fireman's Rule." The research will explore how it applies to modern day law, and how this "rule" applies. The discussion will also focus on lawsuits that have been filed.

History of the Fireman's Law

According to the American Dictionary of Criminal Justice the fireman's rule was created to "protect from liability those who prevail upon firemen and police officers to put out fires or arrest persons, and where injuries to firemen or law enforcement officers occur in response to such citizen requests (Champion, pg.103)." Basically the fireman's law posits that a fireman or a police officer is aware that there is some inherent danger that may be present in the course of carrying out the duties of the job. As such if a fireman or police officer is injured in the process of carrying out his or her duties he or she may not have the legal right to sue because certain risks were assumed when these individuals chose to work in these particular fields.

Furthermore the fireman's rule is designed to protect landowners, businesses, and city officials or governments from liability in the event that an injury occurs while a firefighter or law enforcement officers are carrying out their duties on the property of any of the aforementioned individuals or groups. Not only does the law protect these individuals from liability but it also contributes to public safety overall. The rule is beneficial to public safety because it ensures that citizens can call emergency workers for assistance without the fear of possibly being sued if an injury occurs. If this law or similar laws are not present, citizens may hesitate to call firefighters or police officers when a problem occurs, thus jeopardizing public safety.

The rule originated in 1892 in the case of Gibson v Leonard. This particular case took place in Illinois and involved a landowner whose property was involved in a fire. While attempting to put the fire out, a firefighter (Gibson) was injured and sued the land owner (Leonard). The premise of the lawsuit was the belief that the landowner acted in a manner that was negligent by failing to keep the premises safe, so that the fire could have been avoided altogether.

In this particular case, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a firefighter who entered private property in the performance of his job duties was a licensee, and as such, the property owner owed the firefighter a duty only to "refrain from willful or affirmative acts which are injurious." Practically, this meant that a firefighter, injured while fighting a blaze on private property, could not recover tort damages from the property owner whose ordinary negligence caused the fire (Summary)."

In addition, this particular case basically held that landowners are only responsible for keeping the property safe for mere licensees who are on the land by permission only (Ballard et al.). The landowner can only be held responsible for an injury if there are willful or affirmative acts that cause the property to become injurious (Ballard et al.).

As you can see Gibson v. Leonard played a critical role in the establishment of the fireman's rule. Although this particular case took place in Illinois, it set a precedent upon which the law was established in various states throughout the country. The next section of the discussion will focus on modern day laws associated with the fireman's rule.

Modern Day Law

Today the fireman's rule still exist and it varies slightly from state to state and some states have repealed the rule altogether. According to one author "Many states have adopted, by statute, the "fireman's rule,"...This rule may preclude officers who voluntarily pursue an offender, as a function of their normal employment, from suing others for their negligent or reckless conduct. However, some states have statutes protecting police and firefighters from specific activities, including pursuit driving. Again, the laws of each jurisdiction must be analyzed to determine the scope of that protection (Alpert & Dunham, pg. 17)."

According to the research concerning the fireman's rule, most states that recognize the rule have adapted the law in such a manner that does not completely prevent firefighters or law enforcement officers from recovering damages if injured while carrying out their duties. For instance in Wisconsin the Supreme Court does not extend the fireman's rule to landowners. As such, land owners can be held liable for the injuries firefighters suffer in coming onto their property to get fires under control. This law also extends to injuries sustained by police officers in the course of performing their duties. On the other hand, in California a claim against highway patrol officers for the injuries of city police officers that occurred during a collision with their vehicle subsequent to the patrol officers joining city officers' in a vehicle chase was barred by California's firefighters' rule. The court held that because the highway patrol officers were "jointly engaged" in the vehicle chase and were not asked to engage in the chase and were not in contact via radio with city officers, they assumed the risks of being injured (Police Plaintiff: Firefighter's Rule).

In some States such as South Carolina the fireman's rule does not exist and has never been acknowledged by the courts.

This does not mean that firefighters and police officers always have the right to sue if they are injured during the course of a carrying out job duties. It just means that the lawsuits are not subject to being substantiated by the fireman's rule.

Lawsuits filed related to the Fireman's Law

Since the establishment of the fireman's rule there has been several law suits filed in several states. For instance Jeffery Minnich, v. Med-Waste, Inc., and Incendere, Inc., took place in the state of South Carolina in 2002. In this case the plaintiff Jeffrey Minnich was a public safety officer for the Medical University of South Carolina ("MUSC"). Minnich was carrying out his duties as a public safety officer when he assisted in loading medical waste from MUSC onto a tractor-trailer truck that was the property of Med-Waste, Inc. At some point during the process of loading the medical waste Minnich noticed that the truck was unoccupied and that it was rolling forward and would end up in a public street if it was not stopped (25468 - Minnich v. Med-Waste, Inc. (2002). With this in mind Minnich ran to the truck got inside of the vehicle and stopped it from rolling into the public street.

As a result of his efforts to stop the truck Minnich claimed that he sustained significant injuries as a direct result of the acts or omissions of the employees of Med-Waste, Inc. And he sought to recover damages for his injuries. However the defendants (Med-Waste, Inc., and Incendere, Inc.) assert that Plaintiff's claims are not permitted because of the fireman's rule. They also argued that the fireman's rule was a common law doctrine that prevented firefighters and other emergency responders from recovering damages against a defendant whose negligence results in an on-the-job injury (25468 - Minnich v. Med-Waste, Inc. (2002).

In this particular case a question was posed to the supreme court of South Carolina. The question was Does the Firefighter's Rule prevent an emergency professional, who is wounded as a result of carrying out his or her job related activities, from recovering tort-based damages from the individuals whose negligence instigated the injury (25468 - Minnich v. Med-Waste, Inc. (2002)?

In this particular case the Supreme Court answered the certified question in the following manner

South Carolina has never recognized the firefighter's rule, and we find it is not part of this state's common law. In our view, the tort law of this state adequately addresses negligence claims brought against non-employer tortfeasors arising out of injuries incurred by firefighters and police officers during the discharge of their duties. We are not persuaded by any of the various rationales advanced by those courts that recognize the firefighter's rule. The more sound public policy - and the one we adopt - is to decline to promulgate a rule singling out police officers and firefighters for discriminatory treatment (25468 - Minnich v. Med-Waste, Inc. (2002)."

In this particular case the plaintiff was able to hold the defendant liable for the injuries received even though they occurred while he was carrying out his regular duties. Because South Carolina does not acknowledge the fireman's rule, it was irrelevant in this particular case.

In addition to the aforementioned case, there have been many other cases involving the fireman's rule.

One such case, Kapherr v. MFG Chemical Inc. was decided in the state of Georgia in 2005. In this particular case, the plaintiff was an Emergency Medical Technician responding to a call involving the spill of toxic chemicals (Legally Speaking). As a result of breathing in the fumes from the chemicals the plaintiff suffered asthmatic injuries. The court held that the defendants could not be held liable for the injury under Georgia's fireman's rule (Legally Speaking).

Unlike the case in South Carolina, Georgia does acknowledge the fireman's rule as law and as such the EMT could not receive damages for the injuries suffered. In this particular case it was assumed that the EMT knowingly took the risk associated with responding to an accidental chemical spill. Responding to such a call would be particularly risky if the EMT knew that she suffered from asthma. Now if the chemical spill had been intentional on the part of MFG Chemical Inc., the defendant may have been held liable for the injuries suffered. In any case the court could not award her any damages because of the fireman's rule.

As you can see this particular law can definite prevent a firefighter or any other type of emergency responder from collecting damages in instances where they are injured while performing their job duties. However, in states where the fireman's rules dare not present emergency responders can receive damages for injuries, even if the injuries occur while the law enforcement officer is engaged in the normal duties of the job. It is also important to keep in mind that although some states may not have a fireman's rule they may have other laws on the books that involve the assumption of risks premise and as such, they still may experience difficulty when attempting to collect damages.

These aforementioned cases are a tangible example of the fireman's rule in the court systems of two different states. One state does not acknowledge the fireman's rule as a law while the other state denies a plaintiff the ability to collect damages based on the fireman's rule which is acknowledged by the court system. For many states the modern fireman's rules will remain unchanged well into the future, while others will choose to modify the rule in the future. The next section of this discussion will explore the future of the fireman's rule.

Future of the fireman's Rule

Since the establishment of the fireman's rule states have reformed the law on various occasions. In the future there may be additional reforms made to meet the needs of a changing world and population. For instance some states may have to reform laws to deal with the ongoing threat of terrorism. Courts and legislators will have to examine tough questions in this regard. For instance, will a land owner or business be held liable for injuries that occur as a result of an act of terrorism if the land owner had prior knowledge that an attack was probable and did not make security changes that may have prevented the attack? If the building owner is held liable, will the country that harbored the terrorist also be held liable for the injuries of firefighters or law enforcement officers?

These types of question are even more pertinent in the wake of the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001. In particular, it is now evident that many of the first responders, are now suffering from physical ailments as a result of the air at ground zero being polluted with building materials containing toxins. Many first responders including police officers and firefighters have died as a result of this pollution. There has been a great deal of controversy concerning the liability that the city might have in being negligent by declaring that the air was safe enough for the first responders to work there for many weeks and even months at a time. Did these workers assume some risks because they chose to stay in that environment even though some of them began to experience respiratory problem early on? Or did these individuals remain because they were told that the air was clean enough and therefore did not pose a risk?

It is critically important that in the future, the court systems and legislators develop laws that will address the aforementioned issues. It would be advantageous of state governments to settle or establish how or if the fireman's rule will be applied if the aforementioned scenarios do occur. We all hope that another terrorist attack does not occur, but if one does states must be prepared to deal with the issues that may arise out of such an attack.

It may be the case in the future that states will reform the current fireman's rules so that the aforementioned scenarios are addressed in a manner that is fair for all involved. Other states may choose to abandon the fireman's rule altogether and work towards the establishment of some other law that serves the public safety interests and protects firefighters and law enforcement officers from the negligent acts of individuals. In any case, the fireman's rule will continue to be an issue well into the future.