Antosz v. Allain, 40 A.3d 679

Defendant owns 87 North River Rd., Epping; house fire on Jan 29, 2008 involved hot water heater.
Jason Antosz, a volunteer firefighter, responded and spoke with the on-scene lieutenant.
Antosz slipped on a snow/ice-covered driveway while retrieving a fire extinguisher.
Antosz sued for negligence; Jennifer Antosz claimed loss of consortium.
Trial court granted summary judgment invoking RSA 507:8-h Fireman’s Rule; plaintiffs moved for reconsideration.
This Court reverses and remands, remanding for fact-specific analysis of the statute’s scope and application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 507:8-h bars Antosz’s claim.	Antosz argues statute does not apply to volunteers.	Allain contends the statute bars injuries arising during firefighting duties.	Statute does not bar the claim; plain language governs.
Whether the injury arose from negligent conduct that created the occasion for the official engagement.	Injury from pre-existing driveway condition not tied to fire creation.	Slip-and-fall at scene is incidental to duties and barred.	Injury did not arise from the negligent conduct creating the occasion; not barred.

England v. Tasker, 129 N.H. 467 (N.H. 1987) (origin of Fireman’s Rule)
Akerley v. Hartford Ins. Group, 136 N.H. 433 (N.H. 1992) (policy justifications not controlling statutory text)
Appeal of Union Tel. Co., 160 N.H. 309 (N.H. 2010) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation)
In the Matter of McArdle & McArdle, 162 N.H. 482 (N.H. 2011) (statutory interpretation framework)
Waterfield v. Meredith Corp., 161 N.H. 707 (N.H. 2011) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)