I. Introduction
Our client, Sam Clover (“Clover”), is a battalion chief for the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LAPD”) and a thirty-four-year employee of the LAFD. On March 4th, 2016 Clover arrived home from work and found his home on fire. After alerting the LAFD, Clover entered his home and rescued his wife from the fire. Unfortunately, a part of the roof collapsed on Clover and injured him. Clover was diagnosed with smoke inhalation, a separated shoulder, and burns on both legs that required intensive treatment. The fire that spread to Clover’s home was started by Clover’s next-door neighbor, David Soul (“Soul”).
This memorandum addresses whether the firefighter’s rule compels a determination that Soul owed no duty of care to …show more content…
Brief Answer
A court will likely conclude that Soul was not exonerated from the duty of care he owed Clover. In situations where a person’s negligence necessitates a rescue attempt by another person, the negligent person owes a duty of care to the rescuer unless the two are engaged in a special relationship that exonerates the negligent person from this obligation. Nieghbarger at 546 & 547. This relationship exists between the two parties if the negligent party has compensated the rescuer, directly or indirectly, for the negligent party’s exoneration from the duty of care to the rescuer during the rescue attempt. Id.
Soul never entered into an agreement creating a relationship between Soul and Clover which excused Soul from the duty of care he normally owes Clover. At no time did Soul directly pay to exonerate himself from the duty of care he owed. Additionally, Clover did not perform the rescue as an active LAFD member, so the public never financed a relationship exonerating Soul from his duty of care to Clover. Thus, Soul was not exonerated from the duty of care he owed Clover and a court will likely rule that Soul is liable for Clover injuries.
IV. Statement of …show more content…
In situations where a person’s negligence necessitates a rescue attempt by another person, the negligent person owes a duty of care to the intervener unless the two are engaged in a special relationship that exonerates the negligent person from this obligation. Id. at 546. This relationship exists between the two parties if the negligent party has compensated the rescuer, directly or indirectly, for the negligent party’s exoneration from the duty of care to the rescuer during the rescue attempt. Id.
In Neighbarger, the plaintiffs were employees at Powerine Oil Company as safety supervisors. Id. at 534. Neighbarger had special training in industrial firefighting and Magana had training in emergency response to toxic spills and petroleum firefighting. Id. Both man’s job duties required them to respond to emergencies at the Powerine Refinery and participate in the Powerine fire brigade.
Our client, Sam Clover (“Clover”), is a battalion chief for the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LAPD”) and a thirty-four-year employee of the LAFD. On March 4th, 2016 Clover arrived home from work and found his home on fire. After alerting the LAFD, Clover entered his home and rescued his wife from the fire. Unfortunately, a part of the roof collapsed on Clover and injured him. Clover was diagnosed with smoke inhalation, a separated shoulder, and burns on both legs that required intensive treatment. The fire that spread to Clover’s home was started by Clover’s next-door neighbor, David Soul (“Soul”).
This memorandum addresses whether the firefighter’s rule compels a determination that Soul owed no duty of care to …show more content…
Brief Answer
A court will likely conclude that Soul was not exonerated from the duty of care he owed Clover. In situations where a person’s negligence necessitates a rescue attempt by another person, the negligent person owes a duty of care to the rescuer unless the two are engaged in a special relationship that exonerates the negligent person from this obligation. Nieghbarger at 546 & 547. This relationship exists between the two parties if the negligent party has compensated the rescuer, directly or indirectly, for the negligent party’s exoneration from the duty of care to the rescuer during the rescue attempt. Id.
Soul never entered into an agreement creating a relationship between Soul and Clover which excused Soul from the duty of care he normally owes Clover. At no time did Soul directly pay to exonerate himself from the duty of care he owed. Additionally, Clover did not perform the rescue as an active LAFD member, so the public never financed a relationship exonerating Soul from his duty of care to Clover. Thus, Soul was not exonerated from the duty of care he owed Clover and a court will likely rule that Soul is liable for Clover injuries.
IV. Statement of …show more content…
In situations where a person’s negligence necessitates a rescue attempt by another person, the negligent person owes a duty of care to the intervener unless the two are engaged in a special relationship that exonerates the negligent person from this obligation. Id. at 546. This relationship exists between the two parties if the negligent party has compensated the rescuer, directly or indirectly, for the negligent party’s exoneration from the duty of care to the rescuer during the rescue attempt. Id.
In Neighbarger, the plaintiffs were employees at Powerine Oil Company as safety supervisors. Id. at 534. Neighbarger had special training in industrial firefighting and Magana had training in emergency response to toxic spills and petroleum firefighting. Id. Both man’s job duties required them to respond to emergencies at the Powerine Refinery and participate in the Powerine fire brigade.