ILNews

Opinion examines history of Fireman's Rule

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After delving into the history of caselaw involving Indiana's Fireman's Rule, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined a couple's complaint against an Indianapolis strip club is barred by the rule. The appellate court reversed the denial of the club's motion to dismiss the complaint.

In Babes Showclub, Jaba, Inc., and James B. Altman v. Patrick and Lisa Lair, No. 49A05-0805-CV-262, the Lairs brought a complaint against the strip club for injuries Patrick Lair, an Indianapolis police officer, allegedly suffered at the hands of an underage patron while responding to a complaint on the club's premises. The record doesn't explain the nature of the complaint.

Babes filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing the claims are barred by Indiana's Fireman's Rule. The trial court denied the motion, which led to this interlocutory appeal.

Judge Terry Crone went through the history of the rule, beginning with the Indiana Supreme Court ruling, Woodruff v. Bowen, 136 Ind. 431, 34 N.E. 1113 (1893), in which fireman Woodruff was killed while fighting a fire at a building Bowen owned in downtown Indianapolis. The building was remodeled and unable to withstand the weight from a tenant's stationer's stock and the water that was used to fight the fire. The Supreme Court found Bowen wasn't liable for Woodruff's death because Woodruff was acting in his capacity as a firefighter and was a licensee. Also, Bowen hadn't exerted any "positive wrongful act" that resulted in Woodruff's injury.

The Court of Appeals examined other caselaw dealing with this rule, including Pallikan v. Mark, 163 Ind. App. 178, 323 N.E.2d 398 (1975), Koop v. Bailey, 502 N.E.2d 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), and Heck v. Robey, 659 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1995), in which the Supreme Court revisited the Fireman's Rule for the first time in more than a century. During the years and through the subsequent caselaw, the Fireman's Rule was expanded to other professions whose jobs, such as police officer and paramedic, require them to be put in harms way.

The Court of Appeals used Woodruff to explain its reasoning for reversing the denial of Babes' motion. It was decided in that case that a landowner owes no duty to a firefighter except when committing a positive wrongful act that may result in injury. The Lairs haven't alleged that the showclub committed any positive wrongful act, so their general negligence, negligent security, and common law dram shop claims are barred by the Fireman's Rule, wrote Judge Crone. To the extent that Babes violated any statutes or ordinances in serving alcohol to the patron, nothing indicates those laws were enacted specifically to protect police responding to a complaint on a landowners' premises, so the Lairs' can't recover under this theory of liability.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT