An Ohio appellate court has ruled that firefighters owed no duty to prevent a woman from boarding or riding on a fire truck without a seat belt, because she was an independent adult who assumed that risk. The case was brought following the death of Marguerite Appel who died after she fell out of a Short Creek Joint Fire District engine following a firefighter funeral.
The unusual facts are explained in the ruling as follows:
- On September 9, 2019, Marguerite Appel fell out of a moving fire truck and died during a ceremonial “honor ride” conducted after the funeral for her step-brother, James Horton, who was “laid in state” as the former fire chief of Short Creek Joint Fire.
- Chief Horton had “medically retired” shortly before his death after an illness kept him from his job.
- The community meeting hall portion of the fire station was the location for two days of viewing (calling hours) and a third day for the funeral.
- The fire truck garage was set up for a lunch after the funeral.
- Firefighters came from surrounding departments in dress uniforms to participate in the funeral after which the casket was loaded into a vehicle by uniformed participants while others stood in formation, followed orders, and saluted.
- The vehicle containing the casket proceeded down the street in a procession with other SCJFD vehicles that had their flashing lights activated.
- When fire engine 2218 returned to the station with firefighter Chad Durbin driving, ten family members boarded it for the honor ride before the post-funeral lunch.
- Most of them were wearing matching fire department t-shirts provided by SCJFD. One family member sat in the front passenger seat.
- The other nine (seven adults and two children) entered the back compartment from the rear driver’s side door.
- There were four seats with seat belts in the back compartment, two rear-facing and two forward-facing.
- The back compartment positions were as follows: four adults sat in the four seats; the two children sat on the laps of the adults in the seats on the passenger side; an adult sat on a box installed between the rear-facing seats; one adult sat on the lap of another adult in the rear-facing driver’s side seat; and Ms. Appel occupied a recessed space across from the latter seat.
- When Ms. Appel entered the compartment, she stood in a step-down area close to the rear driver’s side door instead of taking an available seat, which was then offered to additional family members observing the loading.
- Just over a quarter of a mile from the fire department, as the fire truck proceeded along a right hand curve in the road, the back door opened and Ms. Appel fell backwards from the truck onto the roadway.
- She suffered fatal injuries to her head and neck.
Appel’s estate filed a wrong death suit against the district, the apparatus driver, and a firefighter who help organize the event. The complaint alleged negligence, “actual malice, reckless indifference to, or conscious disregard for the rights and safety” of Ms. Appel. The defense asserted governmental immunity and assumption of risk. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District upheld the trial court’s ruling. Quoting from the decision (note: the terms Appellee and Appellants have been replaced with Appel and the Fire District for clarity):
- Appel contends [the immunity statute]’s general grant of immunity did not apply because the function was not shown to be governmental and it was not shown to be proprietary.
- Appel says [the immunity law] requires the political subdivision to demonstrate the function performed here was a governmental or proprietary function as opposed to some other unnamed type of function that is neither governmental nor proprietary.
- The fire district’s use of the fire truck to provide the honor ride under the circumstances existing herein can be viewed as promoting public welfare under [the immunity statute].
- Appel does not contend the providing of a ride after a funeral is not an activity customarily engaged in by nongovernmental persons (as such an argument would sound in a governmental function).
- We conclude the injury was alleged to be caused by any “act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function” under [the immunity statute].
- The Fire Districts’ position is that employees who interact with passengers loaded into the back seating area of their employer’s fire truck have no duty to stop the loading or refrain from driving if a passenger fails to sit in a seat or wear a seat belt (in a case where the passenger at issue urges additional passengers to enter and occupy the empty seat while said passenger occupies a position in a step-down area inside of the back door).
- They argue there was no duty to protect (or warn) Ms. Appel from the ordinary risks of her decision to ride inside the fire truck without taking the seat with a seat belt and argue the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies to obviate the element of duty.
- The Supreme Court has explained that a participant (or spectator) in a recreational activity accepts the associated risks so that if an injury results from conduct which is a foreseeable, customary part of the activity, there is no duty owed to protect the victim from the conduct.
- Primary assumption of the risk applies even when the participant is “entirely ignorant” of the activity’s risk: “The law simply deems certain risks as accepted by plaintiff regardless of actual knowledge or consent.”
- We conclude various policies or best practice standards on all passengers wearing seat belts and the vehicle manufacturer warnings about seat belts and capacity (which matches the provided number of seats with seat belts) do not give rise to a duty by those loading and driving the vehicle to refrain from loading or driving due to the failure of an independent adult passenger to occupy an available seat with a seat belt.
- Appel’s reliance on the various standards is an attempt to impose additional duties on firefighters during non-emergency rides with regard to backseat passengers above that of other drivers.
- The standards cited by Appel all revolve around well-known safety concerns that the adult passengers obviously knew for themselves: seat belts save lives.
- The Fire District had no duty to Ms. Appel to refrain from loading or moving the vehicle under the circumstances relied upon here.
- The cited operation of the motor vehicle and performance of the proprietary function would not constitute the breach of a duty that proximately caused the injury to Ms. Appel.
- Upon so stating, we also specifically reiterate the well-established principle that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine is a no duty rule.
- We conclude a person voluntarily riding in a crowded fire truck after choosing to occupy the space by the door without a seat or seat belt and then encouraging more passengers to enter instead of taking the empty seat, primarily assumes the specific risk of falling out if they lean on the door as the truck navigates a curve after the door handle is accidentally activated by the plaintiff (or another person).
- Accordingly, the primary assumption of the risk doctrine precludes a finding of negligence here.
Here is a copy of the decision. There are a number of other complex legal issues discussed in the ruling that the Legal Eagles may find interesting: