BY RICK HEPP
Newark Star-Ledger (New Jersey)
Copyright 2007 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
All Rights Reserved
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.”