Court Opinion

ID: 9530730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:03:02.76459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:14.160468
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION OF
BURNS, J.
I concur in the result only.
The name of the rule adopted in this case is not the Fireman’s Rule. Its name is the Firefighter’s Rule, formerly known as the Fireman’s Rule.
The majority’s opinion defines the Firefighter’s Rule as follows:
[A] professional fire fighter may not recover damages from a private party for injuries he sustained during the course of putting out a fire even though the private party’s negligence may have caused the fire and injury.
*204In my view, this definition is too broad. Its excessive breadth necessitates the “number of exceptions” referred to in the majority opinion.
I agree with the definition of the Firefighter’s Rule stated as follows in Annotation, Liability of Owner or Occupant of Premises to Police Officer Coming Thereon in Discharge of Officer’s Duty, 30 A.L.R. 4th 81, § 8, at 102 (1984):
[The] negligence of the owner or occupier of premises in starting a fire provides no basis for holding the owner or occupier liable for injuries to a fireman incurred while fighting the fire[.]
This definition limits the Firefighter’s Rule to absolving owners and occupiers of premises from liability for their negligent breach of their legal duty not to start such fires. It does not absolve them from liability for their negligent breach of their other legal duties. For example, it does not absolve them from liability for the negligent breach of their legal duty to warn firefighters of hidden dangers, i.e. dangers that the firefighter reasonably did not know about, the owner or occupier knew about, and the owner reasonably could have and should have warned the firefighter about.