Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Commission, 85 N.Y.2d 423 (1995)
The Firefighter’s Rule bars negligence claims when the performance of a police officer’s or firefighter’s duties increased the risk of the injury happening, and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury; under General Municipal Law § 205-a liability can be asserted against property owners or those with control of the premises where the firefighting takes place if the negligence violates a safety provision.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals consolidated three cases concerning the application of the firefighter’s rule and General Municipal Law § 205-a. The court addressed when the firefighter’s rule bars negligence claims and against whom statutory claims can be asserted. It clarified that the firefighter’s rule applies when the performance of the officer’s duties increased the risk of injury. Regarding General Municipal Law § 205-a, the court found that liability extended to owners and those in control of the premises, but not to contractors who completed their work before the injury. The court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence claims in all three cases and reinstated the statutory claims against the property owner in one case.
Facts
In Zanghi, a police officer slipped on an icy metal plate while approaching a picketer. In Raquet, firefighters were injured in a building collapse during a fire; the plaintiffs sued the building owner and contractors. The plaintiffs alleged the building was not constructed properly. In Ruocco, police officers were injured when they slipped on wet stairs while responding to a call in a subway station and sued the NYCTA.
Procedural History
The trial courts in the three cases denied motions to dismiss the common-law negligence claims based on the firefighter rule. The Appellate Divisions reversed, dismissing the negligence claims. In Raquet, the Appellate Division also dismissed the statutory claims against all defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the negligence claims in all three cases. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the statutory claims against the property owner, Leonard Zane, in Raquet.
Issue(s)
- Whether the firefighter’s rule bars a common-law negligence claim when the injury occurred while performing police or firefighting duties.
- Whether, under General Municipal Law § 205-a, the contractors are subject to liability when the alleged negligence occurred years prior to the fire.
Holding
- Yes, because the firefighter rule bars recovery when the police or firefighting duties increased the risk of the injury.
- No, because liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a is limited to the owner and those in control of the premises at the time of the injury.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reaffirmed the firefighter’s rule, which prevents firefighters and police from suing for negligence in situations that give rise to their services. The court emphasized that the determinative factor is “whether the injury sustained is related to the particular dangers which police officers [and firefighters] are expected to assume as part of their duties.” The court held the necessary connection is present “where the performance of the police officer’s or firefighter’s duties increased the risk of the injury happening, and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury.” For the common-law negligence claims, the Court found that the officers’ injuries in all three cases resulted from risks inherent in their duties, and thus, the claims were properly dismissed. For the statutory claims, the court held that the Appellate Division erred by dismissing the claims based on building code violations. The court stated, “So long as the plaintiff also establishes the necessary connection between the violation and the injury… violations of building code safety provisions provide a sound predicate for General Municipal Law § 205-a liability.” The court held that General Municipal Law § 205-a liability is limited to those having control over the premises, which did not include the contractors. The court cited the legislative history of General Municipal Law § 205-a and § 205-e to support its conclusion that the legislature intended to limit liability to those with control over the premises.