The “Fireman’s Rule” is a traditional principle in most states that provides that public safety officers cannot recover in tort for injuries caused by the same conduct that required the officer’s response. It is codified in RSA 507:8-h:
Firefighters, emergency medical technicians (E.M.T.’s), police officers and other public safety officers shall have no cause of action for injuries arising from negligent conduct which created the particular occasion for the officer’s official engagement. However, this section does not affect such officer’s causes of action for unrelated negligent conduct occurring during the officer’s official engagement, or for other negligent conduct, or for reckless, wanton or willful acts of misconduct.
Antosz is a volunteer firefighter who responded to the scene of a house fire caused by a hot water heater. While walking down the driveway to retrieve a fire extinguisher from a fire truck parked on the street, he slipped and fell on ice and snow and was seriously injured. Antosz sued the homeowner, Allain, for negligence, claiming that the driveway was unsafe as a result of Allain’s unreasonable failure to remove the ice and snow. The trial court ruled that the Fireman’s Rule applies to volunteers and granted Allain’s motion for summary judgment under RSA 507:8-h.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed, because Antosz’s claim did not arise from “negligent conduct which created the particular occasion for the officer’s official engagement” within the meaning of the statute. The negligent failure to clear snow and ice from the driveway was unrelated to the hot water heater fire. As a result, the Court did not need to reach the issue of whether the statute applies to volunteer firefighters. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.