ILNews

Supreme Court takes Fireman's Rule case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer today to case involving the Indiana Fireman's Rule and whether a policeman's suit against an Indianapolis strip club is barred by the rule.
 
In Babes Showclub, Jaba Inc. and James B. Altman v. Patrick and Lisa Lair, No. 49A05-0805-CV-262, the trial court denied Babes' motion to dismiss Patrick and Lisa Lair's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The club argued the complaint should be dismissed because Patrick, a police officer, was subject to the Indiana Fireman's Rule.
 
Patrick was injured by an alleged underage patron while responding to a complaint on the club's premises, and he and his wife filed suit based on negligence and common law dram shop claims.

The Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the denial of the club's motion to dismiss the complaint, basing its decision on Woodruff v. Bowen, 136 Ind. 431, 34 N.E. 1113 (1893), in which it was decided that a landowner owes no duty to a firefighter except when committing a positive wrongful act that may result in injury. Over the years, the Fireman's Rule has been expanded to other professionals, including police officers. Because the Lairs didn't allege the club committed any positive wrongful act, their general negligence, negligent security, and common law dram shop claims are barred by the Fireman's Rule.

In granting transfer to the case, it will be the first time in 14 years the Supreme Court has revisited the Fireman's Rule. Prior to granting transfer to this case, more than a century had passed before the high court ruled on this issue in Heck v. Robey, 659 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1995).

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT