The civil liability of occupants for injuries incurred by firefighters by comparative study of American law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in Private Law of University of Isfahan

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Investigating the owners' civil liability to injuries of firefighters during rescue attempts has a long history in the United States. In this legal system, the firefighters generally are prohibited from recovering damages from owners and occupants who their negligence has caused a fire or other accidents. This rule commonly is called the fireman's rule. However, Because of lawyers’ criticisms of that rule, it has been rejected or exceptions has restricted it in some states. Unlike the United States, there have been no coherent studies in this area in Iranian law. Therefore, the analysis of the issue is possible only with the generalities of civil liability. The analysis of these generalities shows where the fireman’s injuries are the result of the owner's indirect loss (tasbib), the firefighter will not be entitled to damages for injuries related to the essential reason of his presence at the scene of the accident. But if the injuries are not related to accident required presence of him in the scene, he will be strictly liable of the damages, provided that the firefighter enters land with the permission of the owner. but if he enters land with the legal permission, his liability will be based on fault.

Keywords

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. صفایی، سیدحسین و رحیمی، حبیب‌الله (1398)، مسئولیت مدنی (الزامات خارج از قرارداد)، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
    2. قاسم‌زاده، سیدمرتضی (1387)، مبانی مسئولیت مدنی، چ 5، تهران: نشر میزان.
    3. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1390)، الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد (مسئولیت مدنی)، ج 1: قواعد عمومی، چ 10، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
    4. محقق داماد، سید مصطفی (1390)، قواعد فقه بخش مدنی، چ 30، تهران: مرکز نشر علوم اسلامی.
    5. یزدانیان، علیرضا (1386)، حقوق مدنی (قواعد عمومی مسئولیت مدنی)، ج 1، تهران: نشر میزان.

     

    - مقاله

    1. مبین، حجت و امیری، احمد (1396)، «مطالعۀ تطبیقی مسئولیت مدنی مالک یا متصرف در مقابل واردین مجاز و غیرمجاز در حقوق انگلستان و نظام حقوقی اسلام»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، سال چهارم، ش 2.

     

    - پایان‌نامه‌ها

    1. خاکسار، فرانک (1387)، بررسی تطبیقی قاعدۀ اقدام در حقوق اسلام با قاعدۀ مشارکت در خطا در حقوق کامن‌لا، پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه قم.
    2. نصیری، هدیه (1394)، پذیرش خطر در مسئولیت مدنی در حقوق انگلیس، فرانسه و ایران، پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Johnson, Eric E. (2015), Torts: Cases and Context, Vol. 1, US: CALI eLangdell Press.
    2. Varone, J.Curtis. (2007), Legal Consideration for Fire & Emergency Services, US: Delmar, Cengage Learning.

     

    - Articles

    1. Barker, John C.; Wildman, Stephanie M. (1990), “Time to Abolish Implied Assumption of a Reasonable Risk in California“, University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol.25. pp. 647- 679.
    2. Berry, Kiel (2007), ”Espinoza V. Schulenburg: Arizona Adopts the Rescue Doctrine and Firefighter’s Rule“, Arizona Law Review, Vol.49, pp. 171-177.
    3. Casselman, Margo R. (2017), ”Re-Examining the Firefighter’s Rule in Arizona“, Arizona Law Review, Vol.59, pp. 263-287.
    4. Deniston, Marty K. (1981), ”Hubbard v. Boelt: The Fireman´s Rule Extended“, Energy Law Symposium, Iss.1, Article 7, pp. 197- 231.
    5. Fanzlaw, Amy J. (1994), »“A Sign of the Times:” How the Firefighter's Rule and the No-Duty-To- Rescue Rule Impact Convenience Stores' Liability for Failure to Aid a Public Safety Officer«, Stetson Law Review, Vol.XXIII. pp. 843-892.
    6. Handley, Cristen C. (2015), ”Back to the Basics: Restoring Fundamental Tort Principles by Abolishing the Professional-Rescuer’s Doctrine“, Arkansas Law Review, Vol.68, pp 489-510.
    7. Heidt, Robert H. (2007), ”When Plaintiffs Are Premium Planners for Their Injuries: A Fresh Look at the Fireman's Rule“, Indiana Law Journal, Vol.82, Iss.3, Article 5, pp. 745-808.
    8. Hohn, Christopher M., (1994), ”The Missouri Firefighter's Rule“, Missouri Law Review, Vol.59, Iss.2, Article 6, pp. 479-489.
    9. Kuklin, B. (2006), ”Peril Invites Rescue: An Evolutionary Perspective“. Hofstra Law Review. Vol.35, pp. 171-215.
    10. Mitchell Hamline School of Law. (1981), ”Assumption of the Risk and the Fireman's Rule“, William Mitchell Law Review: Vol.7, Iss.3, Article 5, pp. 749-779.
    11. Moss, Michael W. (1975), ”An Examination of the California Fireman's Rule“, McGeorge Law Review, Vol.6, Iss.2, Article 12, pp. 660-682.
    12. Palumbo, Julianne. (1987),. ”Equal Protection and the Fireman's Rule in Ohio“, Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol.38, Iss.1, pp. 123-144.
    13. Rev, Minn. L. (1980), ”The New Minnesota Fireman's Rule –An Application of the Assumption of Risk Doctrine: Armstrong v. Mailand“, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 64, pp. 878-892.
    14. Riley, Benjamin K. (1983), ”The Fireman's Rule: Defining Its Scope Using the Cost-Spreading Rationale“, California Law Review, Vol.71, Iss.1, Article 6, pp. 218-252.
    15. Ruscus, Stephen E. (1991), ”Empty Pockets: Application of the Fireman's Rule to Emergency Medical Tehnicians“, Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Vol.7, Iss.1, Article 20, pp. 339-365.
    16. Zimmerman, Richard D. (1978),. ”Negligence Actions by Police Officers and Firefighters: A Need for a Professional Rescuers Rule“, California Law Review, Vol.66, Iss.3, Article 4, pp. 585-609.

     

    - Documents

    1. Armstrong v. Mailand, 284 N.W.2d 343, 348 (1979)
    2. Flowers v. Rock Creek Terrace, 308 Md. 432, 520 A.2d361 (1987)
    3. Fouch v. Werner, 99 Cal. App. 557, 564, 279 P. 183, 186 (1929)
    4. Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Mll. 182, 32 N.E. 182 (1892)
    5. In the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (2017). No.111,987, Juan A. Apodaca (Appellant) v. Mark Willmore, Matthew Willmore and Oak River Insurance Company (Appellees), Syllabus by The Court.
    6. Meiers v. Fred Koch Brewery, 229 N.Y. 10, 127 N.E. 491 (1920)
    7. Peterson v. Balach 294 Minn. 161, 199 N.W.2d 639 (1972)
    8. Richard White v. State of Maryland, 19 A.3d 369, 419 Md. 265 (2011)
    9. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108, 443 P.2d 561, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97 (1968)

     

Comparative Law Review
Volume 12, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2021
Pages 169-189

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics