Court Opinion

ID: 9582058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:22:01.405702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:25.327918
License: Public Domain

Undercofler, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from Division 1. ". . . [F]iremen and policemen traditionally have been held to be mere licensees, entering under a privilege conferred by legal authority, . . . There always has been something of an aspect of absurdity about these decisions. . . The one really valid basis for the distinction must lie in the fact that firemen and policemen are likely to enter at unforeseeable times, upon unusual parts of the premises, and under circumstances of emergency, where care in looking after the premises, and in preparation for the visit, cannot reasonably be looked for... There is an easy solution, requiring the occupier to take precautions only where it is reasonable to expect him to do so.. . In 1960 the Supreme Court of Illinois carried this to its logical conclusion by throwing over the arbitrary rules as to firemen, and by inference as to policemen, holding that they are to be treated in all respects as invitees, and that any unforeseeability of harm to them goes only to the issue of reasonable care. Although this appears obviously reasonable, the Illinois decision met with no immediate enthusiasm on the part of other courts. Vermont, *763however, has recently adopted the same position, and it may still possibly prevail.” Prosser, Law of Torts, 4th Ed., p. 397. I would adopt the Illinois rule.