Baldonado v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.
176 P.3d 286, 2008 NMCA 010, 143 N.M. 297 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
New Mexico abrogates the 'fireman's rule,' which previously limited the duty of care owed to firefighters, holding that firefighters are owed the same general duty of reasonable care as other citizens. Additionally, a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) does not require that the defendant's conduct be directed at the plaintiff or that the plaintiff be present when the injury to a third party occurs.
Facts:
- El Paso Natural Gas Company owned and operated a fifty-year-old, high-pressure natural gas pipeline.
- On August 19, 2000, the pipeline ruptured near the Pecos River in New Mexico.
- At the time of the rupture, twelve members of an extended family were camping in the vicinity of the pipeline.
- The escaping natural gas ignited, creating an enormous fireball that engulfed the campsite.
- All twelve family members were either killed outright or died later from horrific, severe burns.
- Plaintiffs, who were professional or volunteer members of local fire departments, responded to the emergency.
- Plaintiffs rendered aid to the surviving victims and witnessed their excruciating physical and emotional agony.
- As a result of witnessing the victims' severe injuries, Plaintiffs allege they suffered severe, debilitating emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (firefighters and emergency personnel) sued Defendant, El Paso Natural Gas Company, in a New Mexico district court (trial court).
- The complaint included claims for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the 'fireman's rule' barred all claims and that the NIED and IIED claims failed on their specific elements.
- The district court granted the Defendant's motion, dismissing all counts of the complaint.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their NIED and IIED claims to the New Mexico Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
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 the 'fireman's rule' bar professional rescuers from bringing claims against a party whose conduct created the need for rescue, and must a plaintiff alleging Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) prove that the defendant's outrageous conduct was directed at them and that they were present at the time of injury to a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Alarid, J.
No, the fireman's rule no longer bars such claims, and no, an IIED claim does not require that the conduct be directed at the plaintiff or that the plaintiff be present at the time of injury. The court abrogates the fireman's rule, finding its underlying rationales of premises liability and assumption of risk are inconsistent with modern New Mexico tort law and the rescuer doctrine. Public policy does not justify creating a special exception that denies firefighters the benefit of generally applicable principles of tort liability; any such rule should be enacted by the legislature. The court also holds that a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) does not require the defendant's conduct be 'directed at' the plaintiff, nor does it require the plaintiff's 'presence' at the time of injury to a third party. The existing stringent elements of IIED—outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, severe distress, and causation—are sufficient gatekeepers against frivolous claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) claim because precedent requires a close family relationship between the bystander and the victim, which was not present here.
Concurring - Sutin, J.
No, the claims are not barred, but the majority should not have abrogated the fireman's rule to reach this conclusion. The fireman's rule applies to negligence, not to intentional torts like Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Therefore, the IIED claim could proceed without disturbing the fireman's rule. The rule is based on sound public policy that firefighters are compensated to face risks and that citizens should not be deterred from calling for help for fear of liability for simple negligence. Any change to this long-standing rule should be made by the legislature, not the court.
Concurring - Castillo, J.
No, the IIED claim is not barred, but the majority's decision to address and abrogate the fireman's rule was unnecessary to resolve the case. The NIED claim failed because the plaintiffs lacked the required familial relationship with the victims, making the fireman's rule irrelevant to that analysis. The IIED claim is an intentional tort for which duty is not an element, so the fireman's rule, which is a rule about the scope of duty in negligence, does not apply. By disavowing the rule, the court offered an advisory opinion on an issue not essential to the case's outcome.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for abolishing the common law 'fireman's rule' in New Mexico, aligning the state with a minority of jurisdictions and expanding potential liability for parties whose negligence requires an emergency response. By placing public safety officers on the same legal footing as other foreseeable rescuers, the court prioritizes universal standards of ordinary care over special, class-based immunities. The decision also clarifies the scope of IIED by rejecting rigid 'directed at' and 'presence' requirements, focusing instead on the core element of outrageous conduct and potentially broadening the tort's application to third-party witnesses.
