NJ Responders Allowed to Sue Property Owners

[IzzyEng4 427]

This should be a good discussion. What do you think? Do you think this might be abused or do you think this will finally help all services in protection of their members?

Reposted from Firehouse.com

New Jersey First Responders Allowed to Sue Property Owners

RICK HEPP

Newark Star-Ledger (New Jersey)

The state Supreme Court yesterday ruled that firefighters and police officers injured in the line of duty may sue the owners of the property where they were hurt.

The unanimous decision ends New Jersey's "firefighter's rule," a legal doctrine established in 1960 that prevented firefighters, police and other first responders, whose work is inherently dangerous, from suing if they get hurt answering an emergency call.

"Guys get hurt all the time, but in some cases those injuries aren't due to the emergency at hand, but negligence by the property owner," said Tom Canzanella, president of the Professional Firefighters Association of New Jersey. "This opens up an avenue of greater protection for firefighters and police officers."

The decision allows Dover patrolman Harry Ruiz to proceed with his lawsuit against the business and property owners of Silvana's Bar and Restaurant, where he was struck in the head and knocked unconscious while trying to break up a fight between fans gathered to watch a 2001 World Cup soccer game on television.

Ruiz, who can no longer work after having two vertebrae fused and a metal plate inserted in his neck, claimed the owners were negligent because they failed to provide adequate security as required under a municipal ordinance.

A trial judge dismissed the lawsuit because of the firefighter's rule, but a three-judge Appellate Division panel reinstated it last year based on a 1994 state law allowing injured emergency workers to sue.

A unanimous Supreme Court agreed, finding the state law clearly provides a "broad right" for first responders injured on the premises to sue when injuries are the result of "negligent and intentional acts" by the property owner, Justice Virginia Long wrote in the 18-page opinion.

Ruiz declined to comment on the decision. His attorney, David H. Ironson, said they were pleased that the Supreme Court interpreted the 1994 state law broadly, a decision that he said has "been a long time coming."

"These law enforcement officers, firefighters and other first responders now have the same right to seek recovery as every other public employee injured on the job or every other resident in the state of New Jersey, for that matter," Ironson said.

Attorney Brian W. McAlindin, who represented the building owner, Richard Rossi, faulted the Legislature for passing a law that victimizes property owners.

"It seems to add insult to injury when a property owner is saddled with the burden of defending against personal injury litigation arising out of the work of first responders, who are mandated to perform them," McAlindin said. "There is a certain level of risk that goes along with the territory, which is why they are well-compensated."

Attorney Gordon S. Graber, who represented Silvana's Bar owner Angel Mero, did not return a call for comment.

The legal doctrine known as the firefighter's rule was established in New Jersey by a 1960 state Supreme Court ruling that said people should not have to worry about being sued when they call for help in an emergency.

A state law enacted in 1994, however, expanded the rights of police, firefighters and rescue workers to sue for injuries suffered on the job, while not allowing lawsuits against government agencies or fellow emergency responders.

Last year's appellate decision in Ruiz's case was the latest in a series of contradictory court rulings on whether the 1994 law abolished the firefighter's rule.

In 2001, a two-judge appeals court ruled that the legislation was not really that sweeping. It dismissed a lawsuit filed by a volunteer firefighter in Spring Lake Heights who tripped and broke his wrist and elbow while answering a call that an outdoor gas grill was engulfed in flames. His lawsuit had blamed the homeowner for failing to inspect the propane hose.

Seton Hall University law professor Paula Franzese said yesterday's decision is "significant" because "finally it clarifies the state of the law" following years of legal wrangling over its meaning.

John Payne, a law professor at Rutgers-Newark, said that while the firefighter's rule was established to encourage property owners to call authorities, there is no evidence that abolishing it will lead to situations where they might not call for fear of being sued.

"It's difficult for me to think that a reasonable person would let his or her house burn down on the off chance that liability might ensue," Payne said. "But there's nothing in the court's decision that would prohibit the Legislature from revisiting this and consider whether . . . it would deter people from calling for assistance."

Anthony F. Wieners, executive vice president of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association, said he hopes that doesn't happen.

"We thought the Legislature spoke loudly and clearly almost 15 years ago when it abolished the rule," he said. "The state PBA is confident that the Supreme Court's decision will put an end, once and for all, to the litigation seeking to resuscitate the fireman's rule."

Kevin Keddy, fire chief in Asbury Park, said it only makes sense that first responders should have the right to seek damages through the court. "A firefighter's job is inherently dangerous," he said. "In our justice system, you can sue for pretty much anything. Why shouldn't a first responder be allowed to sue if he's injured through the negligence of someone else?"

Magdelena Padilla, president of the Insurance Council of New Jersey, said the decision doesn't seem to be different from what the Legislature sought when the law was passed.

"It doesn't appear to be saying anything new," Padilla said. "From what we can tell, this is not breaking any new ground."

Staff writer Maryann Spoto contributed to this report.

[Guest]

I think this is problem legislation, at least how its written up in this article...although its very vague. This has litigation abuse written all over it, further tying up an already overcrowded civil justice system with frivilous lawsuits that should be saved for legitimate gross-negligence cases...I would love to know why this needed to be put on the books, anyone have some insight?

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I was debating Izzy whether I was going to post that earlier, I'm glad you did.

This is a very sensitive subject that I think everyone will have varying ideas and opinions on this one.

I agree that this seems very vague and can open a plethra of problems for the fire service and public in general. I am all for affording us the opportunity to protect ourselves for the future in the event of something that is obviously preventable and/or negligable upon the part of a occupant. Boobytraps, arson and things like that come to mind. However the one discussion about the hose on a propane grill to me is a little above what some probably have in mind.

Then again, noone held a gun to my head to do this job and I have decent protections and benefits in place in the event I do get injured or killed and perhaps this type of legislation allowing civil suits could seriously undermind those benefits.

[Guest]

agreed...not sure about NJ specifically but most states have laws in place already to protect everyone, not just first responders from criminal acts i.e., arson, traps, etc... but this seems like tort legislation, and without a better case already being presented this looks like a bad idea...that being said it may offer families of victims an opportunity to recover damages that may not be available due to their status of being a first responder...but any decent lawyer should be able to argue a criminal negligence(or worse) case successfully if the circumstances allow it...but again whats the motivation for this legislation? If its to release a municipality of any responsibility to pay out service related injury rewards, then this is bad

[ex-commish 490]

agreed...not sure about NJ specifically but most states have laws in place already to protect everyone, not just first responders from criminal acts i.e., arson, traps, etc... but this seems like tort legislation, and without a better case already being presented this looks like a bad idea...that being said it may offer families of victims an opportunity to recover damages that may not be available due to their status of being a first responder...but any decent lawyer should be able to argue a criminal negligence(or worse) case successfully if the circumstances allow it...but again whats the motivation for this legislation? If its to release a municipality of any responsibility to pay out service related injury rewards, then this is bad

←

Years ago we responded to a basement fire in which a woman was killed. She fell asleep smoking in her chair and died not before alerting her landlord to get them out upstairs. Her death was actually caused by a fall trying to save her cat. She had seriuos trauma among her burns.

It was also found the basement apartment was not legal...not permit was ever filed..no C/O issued. If one of our guys was hurt do you think this would be a legitimate suit? Something to ponder.

[Guest partyrock]

HFD, thats the gray area that i think this type of legislation could get alot of people in trouble with. That landlord could potentially be responsible even though he had absolutlely no intent to harm anyone let alone one of us.

Blkcloud also covers a big concern. Could governments shed their responsibilities to cover us and dump that burden on the public.

The fact is, nearly all of the emergencies we respond to is the fault of some individual. Poorly maintained wiring, improperly stored combustibles, space heaters, etc. Outside of weather related emergencies everything is the result of someones mistake.

One last thing, what about this scenario. My palce is burning, I tell the FD not to attempt to fight the fire. Am I still liable for ff injuries if they have to get involved to protect exposures or to ensure there is nobody inside?

[Guest]

again, I don't speak with any legal expertise, but there doesn't have to be intent for someone to be liable for a civil case, but any good judge could see early on that the case has no basis(like they should of in the BBQ grill case) unless there is overwhelming negligence...but everyone has to show "duty" to prevent accidents in order to even make it in court, in other words, you have no duty to arrange your lawn furniture in such a way to make sure someone responding to an emergency in your back yard doesn't trip...so if you tell the FD not to fight a fire at your place(which they probably wouldn't listen to) you have no duty to safeguard your neighbors place from danger...sorry I'm sure this has gotten too serious

[Guest]

Years ago we responded to a basement fire in which a woman was killed. She fell asleep smoking in her chair and died not before alerting her landlord to get them out upstairs. Her death was actually caused by a fall trying to save her cat. She had seriuos trauma among her burns.

It was also found the basement apartment was not legal...not permit was ever filed..no C/O issued. If one of our guys was hurt do you think this would be a legitimate suit? Something to ponder.

←

It's an interesting question, but I don't think it would last too long in court. The response would probobly be that the job is inherantly dangerous and that covers that. The landlord is in trouble alread of the basement appartment, in criminal court. I don't think this would have legs as a cival matter because the existance of the basement apt. alone doesn't make it dangerous. This woman could have lived in the legal living area of the house and been in the basement smoking when the fire started. Too many variables, at least in my opinion.

I also think that it sets a bad precident.

[eckyphats 0]

very interesting topic. I dont really believe that individual people could sue property owners but maybe the municipalities they work for to help cover medical cost, death benefits etc could work? save taxpayers money

[cas2383 22]

If people can sue the Fire Dept./Police/Ems ect... why can the services counter sue if a legtimate reason....

[helicopper 1,050]

Why not allow us to sue a property owner if they're negligent and we get hurt?

The law already allows perps to do it - years ago a dirtbag burglarizing a school in NYC fell through a skylight and sued the city for his injuries and WON!

[Guest partyrock]

It's an interesting question, but I don't think it would last too long in court.  The response would probobly be that the job is inherantly dangerous and that covers that.  The landlord is in trouble alread of the basement appartment, in criminal court.  I don't think this would have legs as a cival matter because the existance of the basement apt. alone doesn't make it dangerous.  This woman could have lived in the legal living area of the house and been in the basement smoking when the fire started.  Too many variables, at least in my opinion.

I also think that it sets a bad precident.

←

Thats the point of this legislation. To give these suits legs and to make them hold up in court.