Court Opinion

ID: 9573321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:52:24.504664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:25.688728
License: Public Domain

Weaver, C.J.
I concur with the result of the majority opinion. As I stated in my concurrence in Gibbons v Caraway, 455 Mich 314; 565 NW2d 663 (1997),1 I believe the fireman’s rule should be limited to cases of premises liability. This rule was created because firefighter and police entering private property do not fit the characteristics of licensees, invitees, or trespassers. They often enter land not open to the public, at unexpected times and places, mandated by emergencies that have produced unforeseen conditions that might pose additional risks to their health and safety. The rule should not have been extended beyond the owners and occupiers of land.
As I stated in Gibbons, I believe such a limitation is consistent with the fireman’s rule’s original and most compelling purpose of preventing the imposition of *201an undue, unreasonable burden on possessors of land. Therefore, I concur in the opinion’s result.

 I note that the case before us arose before the effective date of 1998 PA 389, MCL 600.2965-600.2967; MSA 27A.2965-27A.2967, and must therefore be decided under the then-existing provisions of the common law.