The Recent Court of Appeals Decision Regarding the Firefighter’s Rule: Now What?

          It has not been an easy few weeks for the autotort practitioner or motorists in Maryland.  A few cases have come down from the appellate courts that have left a stinging sensation in their wake.  The first is one that may not apply to too many people reading this blog, but is important for many of my firm’s clients.  It was truly a disappointment in that I had been waiting for well over a year for the Maryland Court of Appeals to decide this case, as the decision would affect a different case I had pending.  Now that we have the decision, I could have kept on waiting.  In the recent case of White v. State of Maryland, the Court of Appeals had an opportunity to lessen the harshness of the common law Fireman’s Rule, but didn’t. 

          As a background, this firm represents a significant number of firefighters and police officers.  The Fireman’s Rule, now the Firefighter’s Rule “is a common law rule that generally precludes police officers and firefighters injured in the course of their duties from suing those whose negligence necessitated the public safety officers’ presence at the location where the injury occurred.”  White.  Basically, it is a rule that says if a firefighter or police officers come to your house, then they can’t sue you because they got injured.  

          The Court of Special Appeals initially heard the case and applied the rule rather strictly.  The Court of Appeals then had the opportunity temper the Rule, however, the facts of White were not really conducive to good law.  In White, a state trooper responded to an armed robbery call and initiated a high speed pursuit of the suspect.  The problem was that the dispatcher made an error in that the crime was only a simple theft or even shoplifting, instead of the felony of armed robbery.  During the high speed chase, the trooper lost control of his vehicle and crashed.  He then sued the State of Maryland as the employer of the dispatcher, arguing that he would not have pursued the suspect at such a high speed if he knew it was only a petty theft.

          As the cliché goes, bad facts make bad law.  Perhaps the Court of Appeals knew this and is why they worded their holding as follows:

“We hold that, under the facts of this case, the firefighter’s rule bars Petitioner, Richard White, a police officer injured during a high-speed chase of a fleeing suspect, from suing Respondent, State of Maryland, the employer of a police dispatcher whose negligence caused Petitioner to engage in the high-speed chase.” (Footnote omitted).

          In my practice, and for most personal injury attorneys representing public safety officers, the issue isn’t what happens when a trooper has a single car accident;  in that situation, I agree with the Court.  But the real problem is below. 

          Officer (O) stops motorist A for speeding.  O follows all of the rules and does everything he is supposed to do.  The vehicles are safely on the shoulder; O’s vehicle is at an angle giving him some protection as he speaks to A.  While O is standing beside A’s vehicle, motorist B negligently strikes O causing bodily injury to O. 

          Under the Firefighter’s rule, it is clear that O has no cause-of-action (meaning no case) against A.  It was A’s speeding that caused O to have to exit his cruiser and is one of the causes for O’s injury, but, any case against A is barred by the Firefighter’s rule.  The real question is whether O has a claim against B.  It was not B’s negligence that caused O to be on the side of the road and out of his cruiser.  Some attorneys believe that O is barred from any claim against B under the Fireman’s rule, and that essentially, O accepted the risk of that injury when he entered the Academy.  This is the prevailing defense in such a case.  I disagree, and many jurisdictions are on my side.  O is barred from a claim against A for putting O in a dangerous situation, but B acted directly in injuring O and was not one of “those whose negligence necessitated the public safety officers’ presence at the location where the injury occurred.”  White

          The Court in White did not address all of the important issues related to the Fireman’s rule.  Considering the number of officers injured in the line of duty, I am sure that in time, the Court will have to address the above fact pattern.  I can only hope that the Court will force B to take responsibility for his negligent actions.  In the current state of the law, O is generally forced to settle with B’s insurer for change on the dollar and B avoids personal responsibility for his actions.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Recent Court of Appeals Decision Regarding the Firefighter’s Rule: Now What?

  1. Mark Collins says:

    This has to be one of the most disturbing laws that could ever been put in place.Reason being that if say by chance that an officer is out on a traffic stop, and lets say a person or group of not so law abiding person or persons decides to accidentally on run the officer over at least that is their story.So what the courts are saying that the officer has no grounds for sueing for his injuries if he lives.To me that is opening up a door for open season of officers and all they have to say is it was a accident.
    Also that if you are” not” a police officer or fire fighter out on the highways and your broke down or out changing a flat and someones falls a sleep at the wheel or just not paying attention to the road and they hit that person ,The person that was hit can sue the other person for hitting them because they are not a police officer or fire fighter.
    There has to be something changed with that law.These Police officers and Fire fighers are out there doing their job for the safety of others.Just as the Law Makers are there to make laws for people abide by. What if a person did not like a law that was passed and caused that person a great deal of grief and caused a temporary insanity moment and he shot or ran over someone who helped make that law, Would that person who help make or pass that law have grounds to sue the person who injuried them or would they just have to say well it was the risk of being a law maker.I don’t think they would like that rule very much.It is no different for a officer or Fire figher i’m sorry.It is bad enough that they do a job that is dangerous without taking the right for them to be compensated from someone who injured them.

    • Craig Meyers says:

      Thank you for your responding. The officer or fireman may not make a claim against the person who required the assistance, but there are luckily still some circumstances where the officer or fireman may make a claim. For instance, if a fireman enters a smokey building and falls through a defective floor (the defect being unrelated to the smoke) he CANNOT make a claim against the property owner. But, if the fireman is outside waiting to enter the building and is run over, he can make a claim against the person that ran over him, but he cannot make a claim against the homeowner, who negligently set the home on fire causing the fireman to be on the scene.
      Another example is that if an officer pulls over A for speeding, and is outside of A’s vehicle fully on the shoulder and is hit by B, causing injury, the Officer can sue B for his injuries, but not A for placing him in harms way. The Insurance industry is still working on making all of these claims a prohibited.
      As an attorney for police and fire, I run into these types of scenarios on a regular basis. The insurance companies deny the claims almost every time, which means filing more and more lawsuits.
      Thank you,
      ■Craig I. Meyers, Esq.
      ■481 N. Frederick Avenue, Third Floor
      ■Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>