Ciervo v. City of New York, 93 N.Y.2d 465 (1999)
The common-law firefighter’s rule, which precludes firefighters and police officers from recovering damages for injuries sustained in the line of duty due to negligence that created the need for their services, does not extend to New York City sanitation workers.
Summary
Anthony Ciervo, a sanitation worker, sued the City of New York for negligence after he was injured by a defective sidewalk while collecting garbage. The City argued that the firefighter’s rule should bar recovery. The Court of Appeals held that the firefighter’s rule, which prevents firefighters and police officers from suing for injuries caused by the negligence that necessitated their presence, does not apply to sanitation workers. The Court emphasized that sanitation workers are not specially trained or expected to confront the same level of inherent dangers as police officers and firefighters. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision reinstating the jury verdict in favor of Ciervo.
Facts
Anthony Ciervo, a New York City Department of Sanitation employee, was injured when he stepped into a hole in a defective sidewalk while carrying garbage bags. The Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation had notified the City of the defective condition of the sidewalk before the incident. As a result of the injury, Ciervo retired.
Procedural History
Ciervo sued the City of New York for negligence. The jury found the City 83% negligent and Ciervo 17% comparatively negligent. The Supreme Court granted the City’s motion to set aside the verdict, extending the firefighter’s rule to sanitation workers. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the rule did not apply to sanitation workers and remitted the case for a trial on damages. The Supreme Court then entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The City appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the common-law firefighter’s rule, which bars firefighters and police officers from recovering damages for injuries sustained in the line of duty due to negligence, should be extended to New York City sanitation workers.
Holding
No, because sanitation workers are not the experts engaged, trained, and compensated by the public to confront emergencies and hazards to the same degree as firefighters and police officers; thus, the public policy rationale behind the firefighter’s rule does not extend to sanitation workers.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the firefighter’s rule is based on public policy considerations, specifically that firefighters and police officers are “the experts engaged, trained and compensated by the public to deal on its behalf with emergencies and hazards often created by negligence.” The court emphasized that the determinative factor is whether the injury is related to the particular dangers that police officers and firefighters are expected to assume as part of their duties. Unlike police officers and firefighters, sanitation workers are not expected or trained to assume the hazards routinely encountered by those public safety officers. Sanitation workers are not required to pick up garbage in situations that compromise their safety. The Court distinguished the role of sanitation workers from that of police officers and firefighters whose employment requires them to confront emergencies on behalf of the public. The Court stated, “One would be hard pressed to imagine any occupation in which a subordinate employee would not be required to follow the directions of a supervisor or risk termination. In that instance, sanitation workers are no different from any employees in other occupations.” Allowing recovery by police officers and firefighters against the State for injuries sustained by the very experts it employs to deal with such situations would create an anomaly. Extending the firefighter’s rule to sanitation workers would “abrogate the rule’s underlying policy rationale.”