Robert H. Heidt
Professor of Law, B.A., University of Wisconsin–Madison,
J.D., University of Wisconsin Law School.
Articles by this Author
When Plaintiffs Are Premium Planners for Their Injuries: A Fresh Look at the Fireman’s Rule
- By Robert H. Heidt
- Published 10/5/2007
- Volume 82, Issue 3
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.
Copyright © 2008 The Trustees of Indiana University. All rights reserved. Hosted by