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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT