Fox v. Hawkins
594 N.E.2d 493, 1992 WL 139267 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fireman's Rule remains applicable in Indiana, precluding public safety officers from recovering for ordinary negligence when injured in the line of duty due to risks inherent in their profession, as the rule is independently grounded in premises liability, incurred risk, and public policy, and was not abrogated by the Comparative Fault Act or recent changes in premises liability law.
Facts:
- On the morning of January 8, 1988, Debbie Fox was driving southbound on Mann Road in Marion County when her car stalled at the intersection with Epler Avenue, coming to a stop partially within the motoring lane.
- Debbie Fox could not restart the car and walked to a convenience store to call her husband, Albert Fox.
- Albert Fox picked up Debbie, and they returned to the stalled car but were unable to start it; Albert then took Debbie home and departed to buy parts for the car.
- At 9:47 a.m., Donald Hawkins, an on-duty Marion County Deputy Sheriff, was dispatched to investigate an unattended car at the intersection of Mann Road and Epler Avenue, unaware it belonged to the Foxes.
- Deputy Hawkins parked behind the Foxes' car and exited his cruiser to investigate the stalled vehicle.
- As Deputy Hawkins stood by the driver's door of the Foxes' car, a southbound vehicle skidded out of control and collided with Donald's cruiser, the Foxes' car, and Donald himself.
- Donald Hawkins sustained injuries in the collision, resulting in 27 days of lost work.
- Donald Hawkins's wife, Erna Hawkins, subsequently suffered a loss of consortium due to his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Hawkins filed a negligence lawsuit against Albert and Debbie Fox in the trial court (a court of first instance).
- Erna Hawkins, Donald's wife, filed a derivative claim for loss of consortium against the Foxes.
- Albert and Debbie Fox moved for summary judgment in the trial court, arguing that the Fireman's Rule barred the Hawkinses' claims.
- The trial court denied the Foxes' motion for summary judgment.
- Albert and Debbie Fox (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of summary judgment with the Indiana Court of Appeals (an 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 remain applicable in Indiana, thereby barring a negligence claim by an on-duty police officer injured while investigating a stalled vehicle, notwithstanding arguments that it was abolished by the Comparative Fault Act or recent changes in premises liability law?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, Judge
Yes, the Fireman's Rule remains applicable in Indiana, thereby barring the negligence claims brought by Donald and Erna Hawkins. The court reaffirmed its holding in Kennedy v. Tri-City Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center (1992) that the Fireman's Rule is still the law in Indiana. The rule, which states that public safety professionals cannot hold another negligent for creating the situation they respond to, rests on three distinct theoretical foundations: premises liability (officers are licensees and assume risks), incurred risk (officers accept the inherent dangers of their profession), and public policy. The public policy rationale emphasizes that the public, through taxes, already compensates officers for injuries via medical, disability, and pension schemes, and applying the rule prevents disincentives for citizens to summon aid or for officers to serve all areas equally. The court rejected the argument that the Comparative Fault Act abolished the rule, explaining that the Act, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed and does not invalidate the rule's premises liability and public policy bases, even if it affected the incurred risk defense. It also dismissed the claim that Burrell v. Meads (1991), which changed social guests to invitees in premises liability, ended the rule; this case was an off-premises injury, and public safety officers are not considered social guests. Given the strong, interrelated rationales, the rule's long history, and the absence of specific legislative action, the Fireman's Rule applies. Since Donald Hawkins was acting in his official capacity and the Foxes' actions were merely negligent, not a 'positive wrongful act' (such as an intentional tort, a statutory violation specifically for officers' benefit, or a willful/wanton act), the rule bars the Hawkinses' claims. The alleged statutory violations were found not to establish such a duty.
Analysis:
This case is critical for affirming the enduring validity and scope of the Fireman's Rule in Indiana, reinforcing its independent foundation on premises liability, incurred risk, and public policy. By decisively rejecting arguments for its abrogation by the Comparative Fault Act and Burrell v. Meads, the court solidified the rule against evolving tort principles, providing a clear precedent for claims involving professional rescuers. It establishes that, absent a 'positive wrongful act' beyond ordinary negligence, public safety officers generally cannot recover for injuries sustained while discharging their duties, influencing the allocation of liability and risk for first responders in future cases.
