Court Opinion

ID: 9809434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:13:22.652604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:23.467179
License: Public Domain

*79Douglas, J.,
dissenting.
I can not concur in the opinion of the Court that there is im difference between a municipal employe and the general public. I do not see how the management of the fire department is in any sense a legislative duty; but, admitting that it is governmental in its general nature, I do not think that the rule can be made to apply to the case at bar. Here, the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant were contractural, being those of servant and master. When the chief of the fire department ordered the plaintiff to mount the reel and repair to the scene of the fire, he was treating him as an employe of the city, and not as a citizen. I do> not suppose that such an officer would claim the right to order any citizen he might see fit to mount a hose-cart or climb a ladder, while he would not hesitate to do so where one had expressly agreed to perform such duties. The fact that the defendant Avas a volunteer fireman, if it is a fact, would not alter the case. It Avould only give him the greater moral right to demand that the city should exercise reasonable care to furnish him with safe appliances for the performance of his arduous and dangerous duties. If he is willing to risk his life, without compensation, purely for .the good of his fellow-men, he may surely ask that his danger shall not be unnecessarily increased by the negligence or parsimony of a municipal corporation.