Fireman’s rule in Georgia

Unit VIII Case Study
Case Study 1: 50 points
Review Case Study 18-1: EMT Injured by Toxic Fumes – Files Suit Against Chemical Company, found on page 231 in the
textbook. Kapherr v. MFG Chemical, Inc., No. A06A0184, December 28, 2005.
The full decision is available at
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1005355.html
In Kapherr, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the fireman’s rule does apply to emergency medical technicians.
Address the argument that Kapherr maintained regarding treating the injured only if the scene had been secured. Do you agree with the court’s reasoning in responding to this defense? Explain why, or why not.
Describe a set of circumstances under which it would not be reasonable to consider that the emergency responder has
assumed the risk of the hazardous circumstances at the scene.
Research and determine the status of the fireman’s rule in Georgia. Identify whether there has been any change to the
law since Kapherr. Research and determine the status of the Fireman’s rule in your state. If your state is Georgia or
Florida, please select a neighboring state. Has the rule been adopted and enacted into law? Have there been any
exceptions enacted into law?
Your response should be at least 300 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material
for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must
have accompanying citations.
FIR 4301, Political and Legal Foundations of Fire Protection 8
Case Study 2: 50 points
Read Espinoza v. Schulenburg, CV-05-0158-PR, Arizona Supreme Court, 2006.
To view the full decision copy and paste the following web address into a web browser:
http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/PDF_Articles/0706appellate.pdf
Espinoza was an off duty firefighter and emergency medical technician who was injured while providing roadside
assistance to the Schulenburgs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Schulenburgs, holding that the
firefighter\’s rule bars Espinoza\’s claim. The court of appeals reversed that decision, holding that the firefighter\’s rule
should be narrowly construed so as not to bar the claims of off duty firefighters.
To see the full Court of Appeals decision, copy and paste the following web address into a web browser:
http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/CV040438.pdf
However, the appeals court remanded for determination of whether Espinoza had a duty as part of her job as a firefighter
to render assistance, in which case the court would apparently conclude that the rule should apply to bar her suit. On
appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, a more conclusive decision was handed down. That Court made the clear
distinction between on-duty and off duty, finding that Espinoza volunteered to render aid and, therefore, the fireman’s rule
did not apply.
Discuss how the Arizona Supreme Court distinguished between on-duty and off duty. Do you agree with this distinction?
Can you suggest other distinguishing factors that should have been considered? Should the fact that one receives
workers’ compensation for the injury enter into the distinction? Describe how your department addresses rendering aid off
duty. Is it part of your ‘duty’ as a firefighter, or is it more so an ethical duty? Also, describe how your department
addresses off duty injuries incurred as a result of rendering aid.
Your response should be at least 300 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material
for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must
have accompanying citations.
Please submit your Case Study 1 and 2 responses as one Word document.

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Case Study 1: Kapherr v. MFG Chemical, Inc.

Kapherr‘s assertion that the scene ought to have been secure for her to treat the injured does not hold water for two reasons. First, this claim disregards the fact that as professional rescuer and first responder, she essentially assumed the risk of the perilous conditions at the scene, especially where toxic chemicals are involved. Her argument also ignored the other important aspects of the Fireman’s Policy, such as the unfairness of permitting an Emergency Medical Technician to seek compensation for the very negligence that occasions the need for their deployment (Bennett, 2017). I totally agree with the court ruling. First, it would be unfair to fine parties that negligently create the need for emergency interventions for the injuries sustained by the emergency responders who have been trained to deal with the effects of those unavoidable, although negligently generated, incidences. Furthermore…