Firefighter's rule no longer considered valid in Massachusetts

Law Reporter, Jun 2000

Firefighter's rule no longer considered valid in Massachusetts.

Hopkins v. Medeiros, 724 N.E.2d 336 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).

A Massachusetts appellate court held the firefighter's rule-- which prohibits suits by firefighters and police officers against persons whose negligence causes them to respond to a fire or crime scene-is no longer valid in Massachusetts.

Here, a police officer responded to his fellow officers' call for help at the scene of a melee. He was injured while attempting to subdue the melee. He sued the alleged instigator of the melee, alleging negligence and wanton and reckless conduct. At trial, the court refused to instruct the jury on the rescue doctrine. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant.

Reversing, the appellate court noted that under the rescue doctrine, negligence that creates peril invites rescue and, should the rescuer be hurt in the process, the tort-- feasor will be held liable not only to the primary victim but to the rescuer as well. Here, plaintiff qualifies as a rescuer. He was present at the melee because of his fellow officers' emergency call. He was injured during the rescue attempt and alleges that defendant was negligent. Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to the rescue doctrine instructions.

The court rejected defendant's argument that he owed plaintiff no duty because the firefighter's rule-an exception to the rescue doctrine-should be applied. The court said the rule has been superseded by two state statutes that establish a workers' compensation system for police officers and provide that the government has subrogation rights to recoup its expenses from any third-party tortfeasor. Because the statutes contemplate tort claims that can be brought by police officers, they must have been intended to negate the firefighter's rule, the court said.

The court also found that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the rescue doctrine was not harmless error because the doctrine was directly relevant to whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty, a threshold issue in the case.

Accordingly, the court remanded for a new trial.

Plaintiffs Counsel

*J. Michael Conley, Braintree, Mass.