Gaithersburg: 301-670-7030
Baltimore: 410-769-5400
Frederick: 301-668-2100
Contact Us For Legal Help

Auto Accident Blog

The Recent Court Of Appeals Decision Regarding The Firefighter’s Rule: Now What?

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

It has not been an easy few weeks for the autotort practitioner or motorists in Maryland. A few cases have come down from the appellate courts that have left a stinging sensation in their wake. The first is one that may not apply to too many people reading this blog, but is important for many of my firm’s clients. It was truly a disappointment in that I had been waiting for well over a year for the Maryland Court of Appeals to decide this case, as the decision would affect a different case I had pending. Now that we have the decision, I could have kept on waiting. In the recent case of White v. State of Maryland, the Court of Appeals had an opportunity to lessen the harshness of the common law Fireman’s Rule, but didn’t.

As a background, this firm represents a significant number of firefighters and police officers. The Fireman’s Rule, now the Firefighter’s Rule “is a common law rule that generally precludes police officers and firefighters injured in the course of their duties from suing those whose negligence necessitated the public safety officers’ presence at the location where the injury occurred.” White. Basically, it is a rule that says if a firefighter or police officers come to your house, then they can’t sue you because they got injured.

The Court of Special Appeals initially heard the case and applied the rule rather strictly. The Court of Appeals then had the opportunity temper the Rule, however, the facts of White were not really conducive to good law. In White , a state trooper responded to an armed robbery call and initiated a high speed pursuit of the suspect. The problem was that the dispatcher made an error in that the crime was only a simple theft or even shoplifting, instead of the felony of armed robbery. During the high speed chase, the trooper lost control of his vehicle and crashed. He then sued the State of Maryland as the employer of the dispatcher, arguing that he would not have pursued the suspect at such a high speed if he knew it was only a petty theft.

As the cliché goes, bad facts make bad law. Perhaps the Court of Appeals knew this and is why they worded their holding as follows:

“We hold that, under the facts of this case, the firefighter’s rule bars Petitioner, Richard White, a police officer injured during a high-speed chase of a fleeing suspect, from suing Respondent, State of Maryland, the employer of a police dispatcher whose negligence caused Petitioner to engage in the high-speed chase.” (Footnote omitted).

In my practice, and for most personal injury attorneys representing public safety officers, the issue isn’t what happens when a trooper has a single car accident; in that situation, I agree with the Court. But the real problem is below.

Officer (O) stops motorist A for speeding. O follows all of the rules and does everything he is supposed to do. The vehicles are safely on the shoulder; O’s vehicle is at an angle giving him some protection as he speaks to A. While O is standing beside A’s vehicle, motorist B negligently strikes O causing bodily injury to O.

Under the Firefighter’s rule, it is clear that O has no cause-of-action (meaning no case) against A. It was A’s speeding that caused O to have to exit his cruiser and is one of the causes for O’s injury, but, any case against A is barred by the Firefighter’s rule. The real question is whether O has a claim against B. It was not B’s negligence that caused O to be on the side of the road and out of his cruiser. Some attorneys believe that O is barred from any claim against B under the Fireman’s rule, and that essentially, O accepted the risk of that injury when he entered the Academy. This is the prevailing defense in such a case. I disagree, and many jurisdictions are on my side. O is barred from a claim against A for putting O in a dangerous situation, but B acted directly in injuring O and was not one of “those whose negligence necessitated the public safety officers’ presence at the location where the injury occurred.” White .

The Court in White did not address all of the important issues related to the Fireman’s rule. Considering the number of officers injured in the line of duty, I am sure that in time, the Court will have to address the above fact pattern. I can only hope that the Court will force B to take responsibility for his negligent actions. In the current state of the law, O is generally forced to settle with B’s insurer for change on the dollar and B avoids personal responsibility for his actions.

By Craig I. Meyers, Esq.

Recent Posts


Tags


Archive

RSS

What Our Clients Say

Known for our unwavering commitment to clients, for our integrity, and for delivering the best results, our clients continue to refer their friends, families and neighbors to us for their legal needs.


"One year ago today I made the call to your office. The best decision I could make. I wanted to share with you how impressed I am with your staff and your professionalism."

Heather P.


"Craig did a great job representing me! He's the lawyer I have trusted with my legal needs because he's professional, knowledgeable, and keeps me informed about my case."

Jaclyn K.


"I would like to express my gratitude for your efforts and dedication for my disability case. It's has been quite a long and upsetting process but you have handled my case in an extremely competent and responsible manner."

Leo H.


"I have recommended Mr. Feldman to several of my friends and colleagues and have heard nothing but excellent reviews. He is the best lawyer I have ever used."

Martin


"I received the check today. I could not believe it until I saw the check. Thank you so much. You have improved my family's quality of life tenfold."

Mike F.


"These guys go above and beyond! They always have your best interest in mind."

Mike W.


"You have been kind throughout this process and I appreciate your professionalism as well as your gentle concern. Thanks for helping us and all the others who need your legal expertise. We are grateful."

Nancy F.


"Thanks to Mr. Shultz's aggressive and professional work ethic style I was able to receive the medical services and compensation pertaining to my case."

Navdeep C.


"I can honestly say this firm is simply TOP NOTCH! They not only have handled countless cases for my members that require their services, they also have gone well beyond their "scope" to help some of my folks in other areas of need. "

Rick H.


"The attention and professional care the staff has taken toward my needs has always been excellent. I have no complaints nor worries that my issues discussed are not addressed."

Tim T.


"I just got off the phone with Craig and let him know how thankful we are to you, him and Ken for all your efforts – you are all really terrific to work with!"

Val K.


Locations Throughout Maryland, Virginia & Washington DC

Gaithersburg Office

481 N. Frederick Avenue, Suite 300
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
301-670-7030 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 301-670-9492

Lutherville Office

1301 York Road, Suite 600
Lutherville, MD 21093
410-769-5400 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 410-769-9200

Frederick Office

30 W. Patrick Street, Suite 105
Frederick, MD 21701
301-668-2100 / 800-827-2667
Fax: 301-668-2000

Subscribe To Our Newsletter


TOP