You are here: / / Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer...
, ,

Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action Under Municipal Law 205-e Allowed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined a police officer who was injured when she fell off the back of a flat bed truck while loading police barricades could not sue in negligence (based on the firefighter rule) but could sue under General Municipal Law 205-e based on an alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a (which imposes a general duty to provide a safe work environment):

Re: the applicability of the firefighter rule:

…[T]he firefighter rule provides that “[p]olice and firefighters may not recover in common-law negligence for line-of-duty injuries resulting from risks associated with the particular dangers inherent in that type of employment” …. The rule bars a police officer’s or a firefighter’s recovery ” when the performance of his or her duties increased the risk of the injury happening, and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury'” … * * *

While loading a flatbed truck may not be a task that is typically associated with police work, the alleged accident occurred while the plaintiff was on a police vehicle, loading police barriers, and while she was assigned to the barrier truck detail, a location and job detail to which she was exposed solely as a result of her duties as a police officer… .  * * *

Re: the viability of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action:

As observed by the Court of Appeals, the Legislature has, on several occasions, “sought to ameliorate the harsh effects of the [firefighter] rule” …. To that end, in 1935, the Legislature first enacted General Municipal Law § 205-a, which created a cause of action for firefighters who, while in the line of duty, are injured as a result of violations of statutes or regulations (see General Municipal Law § 205-a; L 1935, ch 800, § 2; L 1936, ch 251, § 1). In 1989, the Legislature enacted General Municipal Law § 205-e in direct response to Santangelo v State of New York (71 NY2d 393), which ,,,had extended the firefighter rule to police officers… .  * * *

…[T]he plaintiff has alleged that the defendants’ Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) violation is a predicate for her General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. Section 205-e does not stand alone and must be predicated on a violation of a separate legal requirement. …[T]he Court of Appeals, in addressing the various amendments to General Municipal Law § 205-e, has stated “that we should apply this provision expansively’ so as to favor recovery by police officers whenever possible”… .

Since section 27-a provides an objective standard by which the actions or omissions of a public employer, such as the City, can be measured for purposes of liability, Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) can serve as a predicate for a section 205-e claim… .  Gammons v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05298, Second Dept 7-17-13

 

You might also like
The Proper Vehicle to Address Fraud Which Is Alleged to Have Tainted a Completed Proceeding Is a Motion to Vacate the Judgment, Not the Institution of a New Plenary Action
Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him
DEFENDANTS’ PROOF DEMONSTRATED THE SNOW STORM WAS OVER 12 HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
No “Reasonable Suspicion,” Defendant Should Not Have Been Stopped and Detained.
Primary Assumption of Risk Jury Charge Required Reversal.
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Liability for Condition of Sidewalk Raised
THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE SUPPORT FOR PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S CLAIM THE MOVEMENT OF THE BUS WHICH CAUSED HER TO FALL WAS “UNUSUAL AND VIOLENT” (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not Meet... Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling