Police sues homeowner

[cobrajet429]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ
Hi,not sure if this is the right forum for my question..If not,Administrator please move it to the correct forum..
My elderly father who was just home from a quadruple bypass needed to call 911 as he was having trouble breathing..The local police and EMS responded and were at the house as I arrived..They stablized him and decided to take him to the local hospital for further observation..As they removed him from the house,one of the officers is claiming that he tripped on the stairs..He has now filed a suit and his lawyer has sent us a letter telling us to submit this to our insurance company..
This just doesn't seem right to me..Shouldn't his injuries and time off be covered by workmans' compensation?.

[ecmst12]

That's a question your insurance company will address when they defend you against the claim/suit. Worker's Comp may have told him he needs to recover from the homeowner.

[Prima Facie]

There is a New Jersey law directly on point:

2A:62A-21. Additional right of action, recovery 1. In addition to any other right of action or recovery otherwise available under law, whenever any law enforcement officer, firefighter, or member of a duly incorporated first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad association suffers any injury, disease or death while in the lawful discharge of his official duties and that injury, disease or death is directly or indirectly the result of the neglect, willful omission, or willful or culpable conduct of any person or entity, other than that law enforcement officer, firefighter or first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad member's employer or co-employee, the law enforcement officer, firefighter, or first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad member suffering that injury or disease, or, in the case of death, a representative of that law enforcement officer, firefighter or first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad member's estate, may seek recovery and damages from the person or entity whose neglect, willful omission, or willful or culpable conduct resulted in that injury, disease or death.

According to the law, the police officer is within his rights to sue your father notwithstanding any worker's compensation claim he may have. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that your father is liable since the police officer must still prove that he was negligent. It just means that the lawsuit is allowed. Hope that helps.

[Blueshirts]

Wow.... what is happening in this world that we live in.

Police suing home owners citing negligence on the home owners part? Even if there were a roller skate on the stairs.... the officer needs to be aware of his surroundings. Being clumbsy isn't negligence on the home owners part.

Isn't there some inherent risk of being an officer of the law!!!!

Anyway, I hope he doesn't get anything for you or your father. Hopefully your father is OK.

[cobrajet429]

Originally Posted by Blueshirts

Wow.... what is happening in this world that we live in.

Police suing home owners citing negligence on the home owners part? Even if there were a roller skate on the stairs.... the officer needs to be aware of his surroundings. Being clumbsy isn't negligence on the home owners part.

Isn't there some inherent risk of being an officer of the law!!!!

Anyway, I hope he doesn't get anything for you or your father. Hopefully your father is OK.

I agree...I feel this is completely absurd,but as pointed out he is has the right to..If a fireman came to his house and ran into the flames to rescue him,he can be sued for getting burned?
dad is doing fine..thanks for asking..

[cyjeff]

There is a difference between accepted risks as part of the job description and additional risks not covered.

For example, a firefighter would not seek damages from a burn sustained at a normal housefire, but, let's say, that the homeowner had decided to start storing 55 gallon barrels of gasoline in the garage and they went up, then there would be civil (and probably criminal) liability.

What was the cause of the officer's injury?

[Prima Facie]

Originally Posted by Blueshirts

Even if there were a roller skate on the stairs.... the officer needs to be aware of his surroundings. Being clumbsy isn't negligence on the home owners part.

Isn't there some inherent risk of being an officer of the law!!!!

The law I cited reversed a common law doctrine called the "firefighter's rule," which prevented firefighters, or other emergency responders such as police officers, from suing a negligent party if an injury occurred as a result of such negligence while performing their duties.

So, the law puts such emergency responders on equal footing with anybody else who is the victim of another's negligence, but it doesn't allow extra latitude to hold a property owner responsible for the emergency responder's own clumsiness. Negligence must still be proven.

[Blueshirts]

Originally Posted by cyjeff

There is a difference between accepted risks as part of the job description and additional risks not covered.

For example, a firefighter would not seek damages from a burn sustained at a normal housefire, but, let's say, that the homeowner had decided to start storing 55 gallon barrels of gasoline in the garage and they went up, then there would be civil (and probably criminal) liability.

What was the cause of the officer's injury?

So if someone is robbing a home.... an officer enters and is shot and killed by the robber using the homeowners gun.... that's negligence on the homeowner and is liable??

This makes no sense!

[cyjeff]

Originally Posted by Prima Facie

The law I cited reversed a common law doctrine called the "firefighter's rule," which prevented firefighters, or other emergency responders such as police officers, from suing a negligent party if an injury occurred as a result of such negligence while performing their duties.

So, the law puts such emergency responders on equal footing with anybody else who is the victim of another's negligence, but it doesn't allow extra latitude to hold a property owner responsible for the emergency responder's own clumsiness. Negligence must still be proven.

EXACTLY.

Homeowners are still responsible for their homes... but if they decide to set a bunch of booby traps to keep out the green eyed space aliens and the firefighter's trigger them, they can sue.

[ecmst12]

Originally Posted by Blueshirts

So if someone is robbing a home.... an officer enters and is shot and killed by the robber using the homeowners gun.... that's negligence on the homeowner and is liable??

This makes no sense!

I'm pretty sure the homeowner could NOT be held liable in that case, even if there was evidence that the gun was improperly stored and that's how the intruder got access to it, the homeowner still didn't pull the trigger. Now if a homeowner called the police about a burgler, and then the HOMEOWNER accidentally shot the responding officer, that would be a different matter entirely.

[ecmst12]

Also, most HO insurance includes coverage for 'medical payments to others', which would pay medical bills for anyone injured on the property (other then a resident) REGARDLESS of whether there was any negligence. This coverage will be available to the officer even if no negligence case exists. Don't stress about it, just let your insurance handle it.

[xylene]

There is nothing personal to this.

Officer is just doing what his lawyer told him to do.

You need to do the same.

If there is no negligence, then nothing gets collected.

[You Are Guilty]

Although NJ abrogates the traditional Fireman's Rule, I'm almost positive they still permit collateral source set-offs, so as a practical matter, it's mostly a wash.

[Prima Facie]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

Although NJ abrogates the traditional Fireman's Rule, I'm almost positive they still permit collateral source set-offs, so as a practical matter, it's mostly a wash.

That's true, unless the injured party has a claim for something not paid by his insurance, such as pain & suffering.