Babes Showclub, Jaba, Inc. v. Lair
2009 WL 4824730, 2009 Ind. LEXIS 1521, 918 N.E.2d 308 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The fireman's rule, based on public policy, bars professional emergency responders from recovering for injuries caused by the negligence that created the emergency requiring their response, but it does not bar recovery for separate and independent negligent or intentional acts occurring thereafter.
Facts:
- On November 30, 2005, Patrick Lair, an Indianapolis police officer, responded to a report of an unruly customer at Babes Showclub, an adult entertainment business.
- Shortly after Officer Lair arrived, he was injured in an assault by an underage male patron.
- The underage male had been consuming alcohol at Babes Showclub prior to the incident.
- Officer Lair alleged that Babes Showclub maintained a nuisance and was negligent in failing to provide adequate security.
- Officer Lair also alleged that Babes Showclub's violation of Dram Shop laws and statutes prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors caused his injuries.
- Patrick Lair sought medical expenses, lost income, and compensation for pain and suffering; his wife, Lisa Lair, sought damages for lost services and consortium.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick and Lisa Lair sued Babes Showclub, JABA, Inc., and James B. Altman (collectively, 'Babes') in the Marion Superior Court (trial court) alleging negligence, nuisance, and violations of Dram Shop laws, seeking damages for Patrick's injuries and Lisa's loss of consortium.
- Babes filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the fireman's rule barred recovery.
- The trial court denied Babes's motion to dismiss.
- The trial court certified its order for interlocutory appeal.
- Babes (Appellants) appealed the trial court's denial of dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the fireman's rule precluded recovery by the Lairs.
- The Lairs (Appellees in the Court of Appeals) petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Indiana's fireman's rule preclude a police officer from recovering for injuries sustained when responding to an unruly patron call, where the injuries were caused by the negligence of the business that created the initial emergency?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boehm
Yes, Indiana's fireman's rule precludes a police officer from recovering for injuries sustained when responding to an unruly patron call if the injuries were caused by the negligence of the business that created the initial emergency. The Court clarified and reaffirmed the fireman's rule, establishing that its fundamental basis is public policy, not premises liability or incurred risk. The rule operates to prevent professional emergency responders from suing for the negligence that initially necessitated their presence and professional response. This is because emergency responders are employed by the public to knowingly combat dangers, many of which are caused by others' negligence. However, the rule does not bar recovery if the injury is caused by negligent or intentional conduct that is separate and independent from the initial negligence that created the emergency, even if it occurs after the responder arrives on the scene. The Court rejected Lair's arguments that the rule should not apply because his claim was not solely premises liability, finding that the rule is not limited to premises liability cases. It also found that the local ordinance and the enhanced battery statute were not specifically aimed at protecting emergency responders in a way that would create an exception to the rule in this context. While Lair's Dram Shop claim was barred because it related to the negligence that created the emergency, the Court clarified that independent Dram Shop negligence (e.g., a visibly intoxicated minor driving into an officer on patrol) would not be barred. Since Lair's complaint alleged only negligence related to the unruly patron situation that brought him to the club, the fireman's rule applied to bar his claim.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it firmly establishes public policy as the sole basis for the fireman's rule in Indiana, resolving prior inconsistencies regarding its theoretical underpinnings. By clarifying that the rule is not limited to premises liability and does not rest on incurred risk, the Court provides a clearer framework for its application to various emergency response scenarios. The distinction between negligence that creates an emergency and independent, subsequent tortious acts is crucial for future cases, ensuring emergency responders are protected from new dangers while still bearing the inherent risks of their calling. This ruling helps maintain the balance of duties owed to and by emergency personnel.
