Suit by FDNY Firefighter Prompts Questions About The Fireman’s Rule
A lawsuit filed by an FDNY firefighter against a homeowner has prompted a rather indignant television news commentary proclaiming: “Did you know there are laws… that allow firefighters to sue you?” Oh my gosh… really??? You mean those scoundrel firefighters could sue JUST LIKE A NORMAL PERSON WHO IS INJURED THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER COULD SUE? How terrible!!!!
Imagine that – what is the world coming to when a person cannot negligently start a fire, or negligently maintain one’s property – and still get the benefit of immunity from liability if a firefighter is killed or injured? How will our democracy survive?
OK – enough of the sarcasm – sometimes I just can’t help myself…. This is a very serious topic, but it amazes me how the media can present such a one sided perspective.
FF Andrew Cannon was injured three years ago at a fire, and filed suit against the homeowner, Kudar Uday. That suit prompted an I Team news expose that cautions its listeners to pay attention “or else you could find yourself with a costly surprise…” Take a look:
You will note that the segment closes with Uday discussing his reluctance to call 911 in the future out of fear of lawsuits. Interestingly – there is no discussion about him being more careful to avoid negligently starting a fire in the first place… just his reluctance to call 911. Investigative reporting at its best!
IMHO that point remains part of the reason why the fire problem in the United States remains higher than any other industrialized nation: here in the US someone can negligently cause a fire – and the expectation is they will be perceived as a victim, the fire will be declared an “accident”, and they will have no financial responsibility for what harm occurs to others.
In the US a fire is considered to be an accident that could happen to anyone. Overload an electrical outlet – we are so sorry, here is your insurance check – we feel so bad for you. Leave flammable paint cans so close to your furnace that they catch fire – our condolences on your loss, here’s your check. Sparks from your welding operation start a fire that kills 2 firefighters – you must feel terrible about that – maybe we can get you some counseling.
But to the firefighters who are injured… sorry guys, it goes with the turf. Suck it up, cupcake!!!!
The ancient Fireman’s Rule aligns perfectly with that perception… and as we see in this news segment – the media gives the negligent “victim” a free pass.
So how about the welders who negligently started the Boston fire earlier this year that killed two firefighters? Do they get a free pass also – or is their negligence somehow different?
And what about the cost to the taxpayers. Should a municipality be allowed to recover the costs associated with an injury/compensation paid to a firefighter injured due to the negligence of a third party? If an injured firefighter’s medical bills and compensation cost $100,000, and his disability pension costs $700,000 (that’s a low-ball figure BTW) – why shouldn’t the taxpayers be able to recover their costs from the person who negligently caused the injury?
The law allows non-firefighters (non-emergency responders) and their employers to recover from a negligent party. A UPS driver injured through the negligence of a homeowner while delivering a package can recover… and if UPS pays him workers comp UPS is entitled to recover. A carpenter injured by the negligence of a homeowner can recover for his injuries and if his health insurer pays any bills on his behalf they can recover their costs.
In the Cannon case, the city of NY should be allowed to have a lien on Cannon’s recovery – so the taxpayers could recover all of their costs associated with Cannon’s injuries before Cannon see’s a penny… How did the I-Team neglect to mention that in their haste to warn the public of the imminent threat posed by firefighters being allowed to sue?
Curt, is there a United States of the future where “having a fire” equals both public shame and personal legal/fiscal liability? Wonder what would mean on the public protection front? Fewer fires, or way fewer fires? (Which of course would impact fire suppression needs, and resources allocated therein.) Please, pull out your crystal ball and tell us our future…
Mike
The horse may have left the barn on that already… but people scratch their heads at why our society has so many more fires than other industrialized nations. I have to believe there is a connection – and the fact that this self-proclaimed “I-Team” reporter did not even suggest to the guy that he be more careful in the future just confirms the problem.
In the US a fire is an accident that could happen to anyone. Overload an electrical outlet – we are so sorry, here is your insurance check – we feel so bad for you. Leave flammable paint cans so close to your furnace that they catch fire – our condolences on your loss, here’s your check. Sparks from your welding operation start a fire that kills 2 firefighters – you must feel terrible about that – maybe we can get you some counseling.
But to the firefighters who are injured… sorry guys, it goes with the turf. Suck it up, cupcake!!!!
Something is wrong here and its high time the fireman’s rule was eliminated. Whether that will cause society to completely reverse our approach to accidental fires… I am not sure. But it would be a start.
Mike
You raise an entirely SEPARATE ISSUE from the question of whether a firefighter should be able to sue a negligent party. Your concerns can only be answered by looking at the specifics of Cannon’s claim. It could be legit, it could be fraudulent – who knows – but even if it is fraudulent – the solution is not to prohibit ALL FIREFIGHTERS from recovering from a negligent party.
However – the workers comp and disability pension issues raise a third issue: should a municipality be allowed to recover the costs associated with an injury/compensation paid to a firefighter injured due to the negligence of a third party? If a firefighter’s medical bills and compensation cost $100,000, and his disability pension costs $700,000 – why shouldn’t the taxpayers be able to recover that from the person who negligently caused the injury? The law allows non-firefighters (non-emergency responders) and their employers to recover from a negligent party.
Thanks Chief for this post and the news clip. I’d like to side step the particulars of FF Cannon’s claim and ask a few broader questions:
How does the fire department’s operations and response, as well as an individual firefighters actions, play into the determination of property owner negligence?
Are there states that have laws permitting FF lawsuits that differentiate between fatalities, career ending injuries, chronic medical conditions, etc.? If so, could you please share your thoughts on some of the considerations for such delineation?
How do worker’s compensation programs fit into lawsuits? If determined negligent, would a property owner be responsible for compensation beyond that provided by worker’s comp? Or, would the property owner be entirely responsible for all costs (e.g., directly or indirectly reimbursing workers comp for medical costs)?
Are private homeowners expected to adhere to the adopted fire code in order to avoid claims of negligence?
Brian
Great questions – and certainly topics worthy of their own post. The short answer – most states recognize the Fireman’s Rule – and prohibit the FF AND THE FD from recovering. There are some exceptions but by and large when firefighters (or their heirs) sue – we see the kind of chilly response from the media that the Cannon case got – and an even chillier one from many corners of the public.
Some states have done away with the Fireman’s Rule – which opens the door to municipalities recovering their comp costs – just like private sector employers do. All they have to do is put a lien on the FFs suit and they get paid first – before the FF sees a penny. It takes some of the incentive out of small dollar cases – but allows for recovery when damages are substantial.
In most states the violation of a fire code is evidence of negligence but not negligence per se. There are some states that consider violation of a law to be negligence per se.
Where suits by firefighters are permitted, the normal rules of negligence would apply – so if the firefighter was negligent or perhaps the overall firefighting operation was negligent the homeowner could raise comparative negligence to offset any claimed loss. I am not aware of any state that allows a municipality to recover separately for its comp costs. Generally the right of the employer to recover is in the nature of a subrogation claim.
Thanks for the follow up Chief.