Boon v. Rivera
65 Cal. Comp. Cases 510, 80 Cal. App. 4th 1322, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 276 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The firefighter's rule does not bar a negligence claim against a person who, after an officer has arrived at an emergency scene, makes an affirmative misrepresentation regarding the nature of the hazard, thereby causing the officer's injury.
Facts:
- Reynaldo Rivera had a history of mental instability and had recently threatened to kill his wife, Milagro Rivera, and their child with a gun.
- Reynaldo also specifically threatened to kill the first police officer who arrived at the residence.
- Milagro was aware of her husband's violent history, his specific threats, and that he possessed an M-16 rifle inside their home.
- Following a 911 call from the residence, Reynaldo barricaded himself inside.
- Police Officer Donald Boon was the first to respond to the scene.
- Milagro spoke directly to Officer Boon and told him that her husband was not violent.
- Relying on Milagro's representation, Boon approached the situation using nonlethal force tactics.
- Reynaldo then shot and severely injured Officer Boon.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Boon and his wife, Crystal Boon, filed a tort action against Milagro Rivera (and others) in a California trial court.
- Milagro Rivera filed a demurrer, arguing that the Boons' complaint failed to state a valid legal claim against her.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, effectively dismissing the case against Milagro Rivera.
- The Boons, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
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 firefighter's rule bar a police officer's negligence claim against a third party who, after the officer's arrival at an emergency scene, affirmatively misrepresents the nature of the threat, causing the officer to suffer injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Rubin, J.
No. The firefighter's rule does not bar a police officer's claim where a third party's affirmative misrepresentation about the nature of a hazard at the scene causes the officer's injury. While the firefighter's rule generally prevents a public safety officer from recovering for the negligence that created the need for their presence, it does not apply to independent acts of misconduct committed after the officer arrives. Citing Lipson v. Superior Court, the court reasoned that the risk of being deceived by someone at the scene about the nature of a hazard is not an inherent risk of a police officer's job. Milagro's affirmative statement that Reynaldo was 'not violent' was not mere nonfeasance (failure to warn), but misfeasance (an affirmative act) that made the officer's position worse and created a foreseeable risk of harm. This conduct falls under an exception to the rule, codified in Civil Code § 1714.9, which reimposes a duty of ordinary care when the injury-causing conduct occurs after the defendant knows of the officer's presence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'independent cause' exception to the firefighter's rule, particularly as it applies to verbal conduct at an emergency scene. It reinforces the critical legal distinction between nonfeasance (a passive failure to act, which generally does not create liability) and misfeasance (an affirmative act, which does). By holding that an affirmative misrepresentation about a hazard falls outside the rule's protection, the court establishes a clear precedent that individuals at an emergency scene have a duty not to mislead first responders. This will likely impact future cases by focusing the legal inquiry on whether a defendant's conduct actively increased the risk to officers, rather than just failing to mitigate a pre-existing risk.
