Court Opinion

ID: 9723985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:40:12.178291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:53.883810
License: Public Domain

Weaver, P.J.
(dissenting). I write to dissent from the majority opinion, because I would hold that the fireman’s rule does bar recovery by plaintiff.
At the time he was injured, plaintiff was driving a police department motorcycle, traveling from the 36th District Court to his patrol area. In his deposition, plaintiff admitted that he did not have *59to check in at the station and that at the time of the accident he was in the area he normally patrolled.
In Woods v City of Warren, 439 Mich 186, 193-194; 482 NW2d 696 (1992), our Supreme Court said that the starting point of analysis is the kind of duty that the officer performs, duties that expose officers to risks of injury far more than the public at large. Plaintiff was a traffic enforcement officer who was assigned to patrol an area. The risk of being in a traffic accident is a risk inherent in his duties.
I would affirm the trial court’s order granting summary disposition.