Lexplug logoLexplug

Carson v. Headrick

Tennessee Supreme Court
900 S.W.2d 685, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 309 (1995)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the policemen and firemen's rule, a citizen who summons police for assistance owes no duty of ordinary care to a responding officer for injuries arising from risks inherent to the job. However, a duty of care is owed, and liability may be imposed, if the officer's injuries are caused by the citizen's intentional, malicious, or reckless misconduct.


Facts:

  • Judith Headrick called 911 for a police escort to her home to retrieve personal belongings, reporting that her husband, Jerry Headrick, was potentially violent, had been drinking, and possessed guns.
  • The 911 dispatcher relayed this information to the sheriff's department.
  • Officers James Carson and Matthew Baird met with Judith Headrick before proceeding to her home.
  • The officers alleged that Headrick told them her husband had never been physically abusive towards her or had altercations with law enforcement, and that his firearms were only 'hunting weapons.'
  • Three years prior, Judith Headrick had filed for an order of protection, alleging her husband had physically abused her and threatened to 'shoot me and any police officers with me.'
  • When the officers escorted Headrick to her home, her husband, Jerry Headrick, fired a rifle from a concealed position.
  • Both Officer Carson and Officer Baird were struck by gunfire and wounded.
  • After wounding the officers, Jerry Headrick killed himself.

Procedural Posture:

  • Officers James Carson and Matthew Baird sued Judith Headrick in trial court for negligence.
  • Headrick filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the policemen and firemen's rule barred the suit.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Headrick.
  • The plaintiffs, Carson and Baird, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, but on the grounds that the officers had assumed the risk of their injuries.
  • The plaintiffs, as appellants, were granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.

Locked

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 a citizen who summons police for assistance owe a duty of ordinary care to a responding police officer for injuries the officer sustains that arise from risks inherent to the job?


Opinions:

Majority - Anderson, Chief Justice

No, a citizen calling for police assistance does not owe a duty of ordinary care to responding officers for injuries arising from risks peculiar to their employment. The policemen and firemen's rule is reaffirmed on public policy grounds, not on its original premises liability or assumption of risk rationales. The court reasoned that public policy is best served by encouraging citizens to summon aid from police without fear of liability for negligence. Police officers are hired, trained, and compensated by the public to confront the very dangers that may arise from such calls. However, the court also adopted a principal exception to this rule: a duty of care is owed, and an action is not barred, where an officer is injured by a citizen's intentional, malicious, or reckless misconduct. In this case, Judith Headrick's failure to inform the officers of her husband's three-year-old threat constituted, at most, simple negligence and did not rise to the level of intentional, malicious, or reckless conduct required to overcome the rule.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the policemen and firemen's rule in Tennessee but shifts its justification from the outdated doctrines of premises liability and assumption of risk to a modern public policy rationale. By grounding the rule in the legal concept of 'duty,' the court clarifies that its application is a question of law for judges, not a question of fact for juries. The adoption of the exception for intentional, malicious, or reckless conduct aligns Tennessee with the majority of jurisdictions, striking a balance between protecting citizens who call for help and holding individuals accountable for egregious misconduct that exceeds the inherent risks of police work.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Carson v. Headrick (1995) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Carson v. Headrick