Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc.
34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 630, 8 Cal.4th 532, 882 P.2d 347 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The firefighter's rule, which bars public safety officers from suing third parties for the negligence that created the need for their services, does not extend to privately employed safety employees. A third party whose negligence causes injury to a private safety employee owes that employee a duty of care.
Facts:
- Craig Neighbarger and John Magana were employed by Powerine Oil Company as safety supervisors with training in industrial firefighting.
- Irwin Industries, Inc., a contractor at the Powerine refinery, had employees, George Short and Robert Brown, working on a valve.
- In violation of industry safety standards, Short used a sharp instrument to clear a blockage in the valve.
- This action caused the valve to release a flammable petroleum product.
- Neighbarger and Magana were working on unrelated tasks nearby without protective firefighting gear when they heard the release.
- Both men moved toward the valve in an attempt to close it.
- As they tried to close the valve, the released petroleum product ignited, severely burning both of them.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Craig Neighbarger and John Magana filed a lawsuit against defendant Irwin Industries, Inc. in the trial court for negligence.
- Irwin Industries moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the firefighter's rule and assumption of risk.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Irwin Industries.
- Neighbarger and Magana, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Irwin Industries, as appellee, owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review.
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 private safety employee from suing a third party whose negligence caused the fire or hazard that led to the employee's on-the-job injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. The firefighter's rule does not bar a private safety employee from suing a negligent third party. The policy justifications underlying the rule for public employees do not apply in the context of private employment. The court reasoned that the firefighter's rule is an exception to the general duty of care, justified by a unique public policy rationale. This rationale includes the fact that the public, through taxes, funds public safety services and provides special compensation and benefits to officers, effectively purchasing exoneration from the duty of care. A private third party, like Irwin Industries, has no such relationship with a private safety employee; it has not paid taxes for their service or contracted to be relieved of its duty of care. Therefore, the general rule of tort liability applies, and the third party remains responsible for its negligence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the firefighter's rule in California, firmly limiting its application to public safety officers. By rejecting the extension of the rule to private employees, the court reinforced the general principle that all parties have a duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm to others. The ruling emphasizes that exceptions to this duty are narrow and must be supported by strong public policy, such as the unique cost-spreading and compensation system that exists for public servants. This case ensures that in private industrial settings, third-party contractors cannot escape liability for negligence that injures a host company's safety personnel.
