Gray v. Russell
1993 WL 173481, 853 S.W.2d 928, 1993 Mo. LEXIS 58 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The firefighter's rule, which is an exception to the rescue doctrine, does not bar a public safety officer from recovering for injuries caused by a landowner's ordinary negligence when the officer is injured while performing routine duties in a non-emergency situation.
Facts:
- Roy Gray was a police officer employed by the City of Windsor, Missouri.
- Gray's duties included conducting routine security checks of buildings in the city's business district.
- On the evening of September 30, 1988, Gray was performing a routine inspection of a building owned by respondents.
- After checking the loading dock, Gray began to descend a set of wooden stairs.
- The stairs collapsed, causing Gray to be badly hurt.
- At no point during the inspection was Gray responding to an emergency or a rescue situation.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants Roy Gray and his wife filed a lawsuit in trial court against the respondent building owners for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the firefighter's rule barred the lawsuit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents.
- Appellants Roy Gray and his wife appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Missouri Supreme 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 firefighter's rule bar a police officer from recovering damages for injuries caused by a landowner's ordinary negligence when the officer was injured on the premises while performing a routine, non-emergency inspection?
Opinions:
Majority - Price, J.
No. The firefighter's rule does not bar a police officer's suit for negligence when the injury occurs during a routine, non-emergency duty. The court reasoned that the firefighter's rule is a narrow exception to the 'rescue doctrine' and applies only in emergency situations. The public policy behind the rule is that public safety officers are hired, trained, and compensated by the public to confront the hazards of an emergency, and the cost of their injuries should be borne by the public through workers' compensation and similar benefits. This policy does not apply in non-emergency situations where an officer is performing a routine duty, such as an inspection. In such circumstances, the officer is not acting as a 'professional rescuer,' can assess risks, and is owed the same duty of care as other persons on the property under traditional premises liability law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the application of the firefighter's rule in Missouri. It establishes that the rule is not a blanket immunity for property owners but is instead strictly limited to injuries arising from the negligence that created an emergency situation. By tying the rule's application to the existence of an emergency, the court preserves the ability of public safety officers to seek tort recovery for negligence they encounter during the course of their routine, non-emergency duties. This holding prevents the rule from making officers 'second class citizens' and ensures that standard principles of premises liability apply outside the specific context of an emergency response.
