Lipson v. Superior Court
182 Cal. Rptr. 629, 31 Cal. 3d 362, 644 P.2d 822 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The fireman's rule does not preclude a firefighter from recovering for injuries proximately caused by a defendant's negligent or intentional misrepresentation of the nature of a hazard, nor does it bar a strict liability claim for injuries caused by an ultrahazardous activity that is independent of the emergency that necessitated the firefighter's presence.
Facts:
- Petitioners own and operate a chemical manufacturing plant in Orange County, California.
- On January 17, 1979, John Berger, a fireman with the Orange County Fire Department, responded to a chemical boilover at petitioners' plant.
- Upon Berger's arrival, petitioners informed him that the boilover did not involve toxic chemicals or materials and that there would be no danger in attempting to contain it.
- In reality, the boilover did involve toxic substances, and Berger suffered severe injuries due to exposure while attempting to contain it.
- Berger asserts that if he had been correctly informed of the toxic nature of the substances, he would have taken adequate precautions to ensure his safety and would not have been injured.
- Berger also alleges his injury was proximately caused by petitioners' maintenance of an ultrahazardous activity (the manufacture of dangerous and toxic chemicals) on the premises.
Procedural Posture:
- John Berger (real party) filed a first amended complaint in state trial court against petitioners, alleging negligent or intentional misrepresentation and strict liability.
- Petitioners moved for summary judgment in the trial court, arguing that Berger's causes of action were barred by the fireman's rule.
- The trial court denied petitioners' motion for summary judgment.
- Petitioners sought a peremptory writ of mandate from the California Court of Appeal to compel the trial court to grant their motion.
- The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ, then issued the peremptory writ, instructing the trial court to grant the motion and dismiss the action.
- John Berger (real party) petitioned the California Supreme Court for a hearing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the fireman's rule preclude a firefighter from recovering damages from a party whose negligent or intentional misrepresentation of the nature of an emergency at a chemical manufacturing plant proximately caused the injury? 2. Does the fireman's rule bar a firefighter’s strict liability claim for damages for injuries proximately caused by a party’s maintenance of an ultrahazardous activity on the premises if that activity was independent of the cause of the emergency?
Opinions:
Majority - Bird, C. J.
No, the fireman's rule does not preclude a firefighter from recovering damages for injuries proximately caused by a party's negligent or intentional misrepresentation of the nature of an emergency, nor does it bar a strict liability claim for injuries caused by an ultrahazardous activity if that activity was independent of the cause of the emergency. The fireman's rule is based on the principle of assumption of risk, which applies only to hazards that are known or can reasonably be anticipated as part of a firefighter's occupation. Misrepresentation by a property owner or occupier regarding the nature of a hazard is an independent act of misconduct that occurs after the firefighter arrives and materially enhances the risk or creates a new risk; it is not a risk inherent in firefighting. Public policy dictates that owners accurately inform firefighters, as reliance on misleading information can lead to severe injury or death. Similarly, while the fireman's rule bars recovery if an ultrahazardous activity caused the emergency, it does not bar recovery if an independent ultrahazardous activity or condition proximately causes injury separate from the initial emergency. Firefighters are trained and compensated to fight fires caused by both negligence and ultrahazardous activities that initiate the emergency, but not for injuries from separate, unknown ultrahazardous conditions. The court rejected the complete abolition of the fireman's rule, but affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, as the record did not establish, as a matter of law, that the alleged misrepresentation or the ultrahazardous activity were the sole causes of the initial boilover or that Berger would have sustained the same injuries regardless of the misrepresentation.
Concurring - Mosk, J.
Yes, the majority correctly concludes that the fireman's rule does not bar recovery on the facts alleged in this case. The core principle of the fireman's rule is that one who has knowingly and voluntarily confronted a hazard cannot recover for injuries sustained thereby. If the plaintiff, a firefighter, can establish he was deceived by the defendant regarding the nature of the hazard, he did not "knowingly and voluntarily" confront the danger. However, the concurring justice dissociates from the majority's proposed solutions to several hypothetical cases, particularly those involving the nature of materials that may cause a fire or explosion, or strict liability for ultrahazardous activity without misrepresentation. These hypotheticals are deemed unnecessary dicta and could lead to holdings that violate the basic premise of the fireman's rule, which is that firemen are engaged to fight all fires regardless of origin, and almost every fire results from some form of negligence.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of California's fireman's rule, establishing a crucial distinction between the original hazard that summons emergency personnel and subsequent, independent acts of misconduct by a property owner. By allowing recovery for misrepresentation or independent ultrahazardous activities, the court protects firefighters from risks that are not reasonably foreseeable or inherent in their profession due to a defendant's active deception or creation of new, unexpected dangers. This ruling encourages property owners to provide accurate information and maintain safe premises, enhancing firefighter safety and ensuring that responsibility for unanticipated harms falls on those who create them, rather than solely on the public via taxes or on injured firefighters themselves.
