"How States Vary on the Fireman’s Rule and Its Applicability"


Swift Currie attorney Shea Feagin’s article, “How States Vary on the Fireman’s Rule and Its Applicability,” was published on January 23 in Law360.

The article discusses the differences from state to state in the application of the fireman’s rule, which declares that public safety employees cannot recover damages for injuries or harm inflicted in their regular line of work in which hazards can be anticipated.

Feagin shares, “Courts have found that citizens should be encouraged to rely on and call public employees specifically trained and paid to address these issues without fear of defending themselves from a lawsuit.”

She goes on to clarify that, “While public safety officers are barred from bringing a claim for bodily injuries caused by negligence that required their presence, a subsequent or extrinsic act of negligence, or acts other than those necessitating the public safety officer’s presence, are actionable in a tort.”

Feagin points out one unique interpretation of the fireman’s rule: “If the jurisdiction is Georgia, the claim is not barred if the injury was caused by either a willful and wanton act, or if it was caused by a subsequent or extrinsic act.”

Subscribers may click here to view the full article.

Sign Up For Updates Subscribe to receive Swift Currie client communications.
Jump to PageX