Case Name: Suzanne Taylor SANDERSON, Petitioner, v. FREEDOM SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-07-27
Citations: 548 So. 2d 221
Docket Number: No. 69687
Parties: Suzanne Taylor SANDERSON, Petitioner, v. FREEDOM SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
Judges: overton, McDonald, shaw, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 548
Pages: 221–223

Head Matter:
Suzanne Taylor SANDERSON, Petitioner, v. FREEDOM SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
No. 69687.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 27, 1989.
Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, and Kerrigan, Estess & Rankin, Pensacola, for petitioner.
Gordon D. Cherr of Karl, McConnaugh-hay, Roland & Maida, P.A., Tallahassee, for respondent.
Herman J. Russomanno and Sally R. Doemer of Floyd, Pearson, Richman, Greer, Weil, Zack & Brumbaugh, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Robert D. Peltz of Rossman, Baumber-ger & Pletz, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for The Florida Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Sanderson v. Freedom Savings & Loan Association, 496 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified its decision as in direct conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Whitlock v. Elich, 409 So.2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Petitioner Sanderson, as personal representative of the estate of Stephen Taylor, a police officer, sought damages for Taylor's wrongful death. Officer Taylor was killed during an October 19, 1982 robbery of respondent Freedom Savings and Loan Association. As alleged in the complaint, two men were in the process of robbing the savings and loan when Officer Taylor was dispatched to the scene in response to a silent alarm. The complaint alleges that an officer of the savings and loan negligently warned the robbers of the imminent approach of the police by announcing the officers' presence in such a way that it was understood by the robbers. Once aware of the officers' presence, one of the robbers went out the back door, circled around to the front and fatally shot Officer Taylor. The trial court granted Freedom Savings and Loan's motion to dismiss the complaint on he ground that the "Fireman's Rule" barred recovery.
On appeal, the district court refused to adopt Sanderson's position that the Fireman's Rule, requiring allegations of willful misconduct or wanton negligence, applies only in a situation where a fireman or policeman is injured due to a defective condition of the premises and not when the injury is due to the active negligence of the owner of the premises or its agent. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that
the fireman's rule bars recovery in personal injury and wrongful death actions when the cause of action is based upon an injury sustained by the fireman or policeman while acting in the line of duty, unless the complaint sufficiently alleges willful misconduct or wanton negligence on the part of the defendant which would injure the licensee.
496 So.2d at 956.
The district court recognized conflict with the Fifth District's holding in Whit-lock. The Whitlock court held that a police officer need not allege wanton negligence or willful misconduct on the part of a defendant where the injury sustained was the result of active conduct of the putative tortfeasor rather than by a defective condition of the landowner's premises. 409 So.2d at 111.
The position taken by the court below is consistent with our recent opinion in Kilpa-trick v. Sklar, 548 So.2d 215 (Fla.1989). In rejecting Sanderson's contention that the Fireman's Rule only applies when an injury results from a defective condition of the premises, the court below relied on the reasoning of the Third District Court of Appeal in Rishel v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 466 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In Kilpatrick, we quoted approvingly the Rishel court's conclusion that
"the fireman's rule, as applied in Florida, is not limited to cases involving a negligent condition on the premises.... [Ajbsent a showing of willful and wanton misconduct, neither a fireman nor a policeman may recover from a property owner for injuries arising out of the discharge of professional duties...."
Op. at 217 (quoting Rishel, 466 So.2d at 1138).
Since Sanderson failed to allege wanton or willful misconduct on the part of the respondent, the action was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the decision below is approved and the decision in Whitlock is disapproved to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion and our opinion in Kilpa-trick.
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, shaw, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
EHRLICH, C.J., dissents with an opinion.