What Do You Think: Did 'Firefighter's Rule' Prevent Deputy from Suing after Driver Struck Her?

Emmitsburg, MD (WorkersCompensation.com) – All too often, the news gives reminders of the inherent dangers involved in police work. But when an officer is injured on the job, when does the injury shift from being part work to being something she can sue for?

That question recently faced a Maryland court, prompting an analysis of the state’s “firefighter’s rule.”

While on routine patrol duty, a deputy responded to the scene of a minor motor vehicle collision. Because one of the vehicles involved in the collision was blocking another motorist from exiting a parking lot, the deputy instructed the driver to move his vehicle forward. The driver returned to his vehicle, started it, and began revving the engine.

Although the deputy put her hands up and shouted at the driver not to move yet because the car directly in front of him had not yet pulled away, the driver suddenly moved the car forward and lost of control. To avoid hitting the car in front of him, the driver “jerked the wheel” to the left and struck the deputy, who experienced injuries to her neck, left hand, arm, and shoulder. She underwent surgery and was unable to return to work for several months.

After the accident, the driver died, and the deputy sued his estate for her injuries.

The trial court found that the “firefighter’s rule” precluded the deputy from recovery damages from the estate. According to the court, the deputy responded to a vehicle collision involving the driver and was injured “by the very same party who occasioned her presence at the scene.” In other words, the injury was part of her job. Thus, the trial court found in the estate’s favor.

The deputy appealed to the next level in court.

Under Maryland law, the firefighter's rule generally precludes police officers and firefighters injured in the course of their duties from suing those whose negligence necessitated the public safety officers' presence at the location where the injury occurred.

Did the firefighter’s rule prevent the deputy from suing the driver’s estate?

A. Yes. The deputy’s injury occurred when she was in the process of performing the duty for which she was ordered.

B. No. The deputy could not have reasonably foreseen that while telling the driver not to move, he would suddenly jerk his vehicle toward her and strike her.

If you chose A, you agreed with the court in Topper v. Thomas, No. 170, September Term, 2021 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.01/04/22, unpublished), which upheld the lower court’s decision and explained that the deputy’s injury fell “squarely within the range of hazards that police officers are expected to confront in the course of their duties on behalf of the public.”

The court reasoned that the possibility of injury from the movement of the vehicle involved in the initial accident away from the lanes of travel was reasonably foreseeable as part of the deputy’s occupational risk in investigating a motor vehicle collision.

Additionally, the court highlighted that, at the time she was struck, the deputy was engaged in her official duties, which included controlling the traffic, clearing the intersection, and advising the drivers to move their vehicles.

As a result, the court agreed with the lower court that the firefighter’s rule prevented the deputy from suing the driver’s estate.

This feature does not provide legal advice.

Share This Article: