Moody v. Delta Western, Inc.

Facts

MOODY V. DELTA WESTERN, INC.

38 P.3d 1139 (2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Moody (P) appealed a summary judgment for Delta (D) based on a firefighter's rule defense.

FACTS: A D employee left a fuel truck in a driveway with the keys in the ignition. The door was unlocked, and the truck contained fuel and weighed over 10,000 pounds. D had a policy of removing the keys from the ignitions of its trucks based on prior incidents. Coolidge, who was highly intoxicated, entered the unlocked truck and proceeded to drive around town. He ran cars off the road, nearly collided with several vehicles, and drove at speeds exceeding seventy miles per hour. P, the chief of the Dillingham Police Department, was one of the officers who responded to the reports of the recklessly driven fuel truck. The driver of the van in which P was a passenger attempted to stop the truck after moving in front of it, but Coolidge rammed the van, throwing P against the dashboard and windshield. P suffered permanent injuries. P sued D. D argued that the 'Firefighter's Rule' barred P's cause of action. D got a summary judgment. P appealed.

ISSUE: Is the Firefighter’s rule still valid law?

RULE OF LAW: The Firefighter’s rule is still valid law.

HOLDING AND DECISION: (Matthews, J.) Is the Firefighter’s rule still valid law? Yes. Both [firefighters and police officers] are paid to confront crises and allay dangers by an uncircumspect citizenry, a circumstance that serves to distinguish firefighters and police from most other public employees. Citizens summon police and firefighters to confront danger. Government entities maintain police and fire departments in anticipation of those inevitable physical perils that burden the human condition, whereas most public employment posts are created not to confront dangers that will arise but to perform some other public function that may incidentally involve risk . . . . This fundamental concept rests on the assumption that government entities employ firefighters and police officers, at least in part, to deal with the hazards that may result from their taxpayers' own future acts of negligence. . . . Exposing the negligent taxpayer to liability for having summoned police would impose upon him multiple burdens for that protection. Public policy strongly opposes the notion that an act of ordinary negligence would expose the actor to liability for injuries sustained in the course of a public servant's performance of necessary, albeit hazardous, public duties. A citizen should not have to run the risk of a civil judgment against him for negligent acts that occasion the presence of a firefighter at the scene of a carelessly set fire or a police officer at a disturbance or unlawful incident resulting from negligent conduct. The Firefighter's Rule bars only recovery for the negligence that creates the need for the public safety officer's service. It does not apply to negligent conduct occurring after the police officer or firefighter arrives at the scene or to misconduct other than that which necessitates the officer's presence. The negligent party is said to have no duty to the public safety officer to act without negligence in creating the condition that necessitates the officer's intervention because the officer is employed by the public to respond to such conditions and receives compensation and benefits for the risks inherent in such responses. Requiring members of the public to pay for injuries resulting from such responses effectively imposes a double payment obligation on them. The Firefighter's Rule reflects sound public policy. The public pays for emergency responses of public safety officials in the form of salaries and enhanced benefits. Requiring members of the public to pay for injuries incurred by officers in such responses asks an individual to pay again for services the community has collectively purchased. Further, negligence is a common factor in emergencies that require the intervention of public safety officers. Allowing recovery would cause a proliferation of litigation aimed at shifting to individuals or their insurers costs that have already been widely shared. Affirmed. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS: The rule is applied in very narrow circumstances as detailed by the court. 

© 2007-2024 Abn Study Partner

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.