As courts continue to increase tort liability by expanding and purifying the negligence concept, another common law limit on liability being swept away is the fireman's rule.This rule bars firemen, policemen, ambulance drivers, emergency medical technicians and other professional rescuers from maintaining a tort suit against the private party, typically a crime victim or an occupant of a home or business, whose negligence triggered the peril in response to which the professional rescuer was injured.In the modern era courts or legislatures in at least eight jurisdictions have rejected the fireman's rule. Hence, once the professional rescuer in these jurisdictions shows that the defendant crime victim or home or business owner was negligent in triggering the peril and that the rescuer's injuries came from responding to the peril, the professional rescuer will establish a prima facie case to recover for his injuries from the defendant.At that point the defendant crime victim or home or business owner must resort to his only substantive defense, the rescuer's contributory negligence, which, this Article argues, the defendant will face severe practical difficulties in establishing. The current law raises serious doubt about whether those who have provided the professional rescuer first party benefits to compensate him for his injuries--such as the rescuer's accident, life and health insurers, the administrators of his disability pension plan or those paying for specially created death benefits--are subrogated to the rescuer's tort recovery from the defendant.Abolishing the fireman's rule, therefore, may allow the professional rescuer to recover all his tort damages from the defendant crime victim or homeowner on top of all of the first-party benefits he has also received. After explaining the fireman's rule in Part II, this Article discusses in Part III most of the arguments for and against abolishing the rule.The Article demonstrates several problems with the arguments against the fireman's rule and concludes by expressing novel arguments in favor of retaining the rule.