November 27, 2002

The Firefighter's Rule

The "Firefighter's Rule" -- a sub-species of the assumption of the risk doctrine that sometimes prohibits public safety officers from recovering in tort for injuries sustained in the line of duty -- is a pet issue for me, as one of the biggest cases I ever worked on turned on its application. Recently in Coos Bay, Oregon, three firefighters died tragically when a fire in an auto parts store ballooned unexpectedly, causing the roof to collapse. The unexpected ballooning was allegedly caused by wood in the structure that had become unnaturally dry and flammable due to years of exposure to an incinerator used to burn waste grease from the store's machine shop. This tragic accident is recounted here. I'd be willing to wager that a published opinion on "The Rule" will eventually emerge from this mess. My condolences to the firefighters' families and colleagues.

Posted by John 2 at November 27, 2002 8:29 PM
Comments

The "firefighter's rule" does not comply with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment trumps the so called "firefighter's rule."

To deprive a public safety officer from collecting civil, punitive or any other damages in any case negates the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, it assumes that an entity can break the law, and if a public service employee is injured as a result of the illegal act, that entity is granted automatic and absolute immunity.

Posted by: K.C at July 15, 2004 12:08 AM

I am the first to call these folks heroes for their brave service to society. However, police officers and firefighters should not be allowed to sue others for injuries sustained while performing their jobs.
Officers are afforded a great deal of benefits if injured in the line of duty. Also, they indeed assume the risk of injury whenever they enter into an environment of heightened risk. It is their JOB.

Posted by: jeff at December 22, 2004 10:06 AM

Safety officers are actually pretty poorly compensated. In SoDak, for instance, the average fulltime firefighter makes 34K, permanent disability benefits (should they have been on the force that long) is only 23-25k. Try to feed a family on that with lingering medical expenses and no future job prospects. The FFR is a bastard doctrine that long ago should have disappeared. Your employment should not remove your day in court.

Posted by: Shadow at January 2, 2005 6:27 AM

I am a firefighter and I think the rule makes a certain amount of sense. Unless there is some form of gross negligence invloved then that is a different story. The other issue is this could easily become a convienient excuse to make up for poor strategy or tactics. P.S. Only Fire Officers should be reffered to as Officers. The rest of us are just Firefighters.

Posted by: Bob at February 8, 2005 9:53 AM