Higgins v. Rhode Island Hospital
35 A.3d 919
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Higgins, an EMT/firefighter for the City of Providence, transported a patient to Rhode Island Hospital and remained on duty at the hospital.
- A nurse asked Higgins to help restrain a disorderly patient who was spitting and agitated in the triage corridor.
- Despite restraints, the patient had freedom of motion; Higgins and guards attempted to subdue him to allow medication administration.
- A spit mask was tried; when another mask was attempted, the patient jerked and struck Higgins, knocking him unconscious.
- Higgins suffered serious, permanent injuries and later retired on disability; he received injure-on-duty benefits and other disability benefits.
- Higgins sued Rhode Island Hospital and U.S. Security Associates, alleging negligence in restraining the patient; defendants moved for summary judgment, invoking the firefighter’s rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the firefighter’s rule bar Higgins’ claim here? | Higgins argues the rule should not apply because no emergency caused him to respond to this scene. | Defendants argue Higgins was injured in the course of employment and the causal danger arose from the emergency; thus the rule bars recovery. | Firefighter’s rule bars Higgins’ claim. |
| Was there a nexus between the tortfeasor and the emergency that brought Higgins to the scene? | Higgins contends the injury arose from an intervening incident at the emergency scene, not the initial emergency. | Defendants contend there was a nexus since injury occurred while addressing the unruly patient tied to the hospital scene. | Yes, there was a nexus; tortfeasors caused the emergency that brought Higgins to the scene. |
| Should public policy under the firefighter’s rule weigh against recovery here? | Higgins argues limiting the rule would undermine emergency-response incentives. | Defendants emphasize avoidance of duplicative recoveries and public policy supporting compensation only through duties arising from emergencies. | Public policy supports applying the rule to bar recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Labrie v. Pace Membership Warehouse, Inc., 678 A.2d 867 (R.I.1996) (limits firefighter’s rule to emergencies; not applied when no emergency.)
- Rinn v. Razee, 912 A.2d 939 (R.I.2006) (recognizes nexus requirement between tortfeasor and emergency.)
- Vierra, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v., 619 A.2d 436 (R.I.1993) (extends rule to police officers; public-safety rule origin.)
- Walker v. Prignano, 850 A.2d 954 (R.I.2004) (emergency-created risk on defendant’s property bars claim.)
- Krajewski v. Bourque, 782 A.2d 650 (R.I.2001) (recognizes nexus standard for applicability of the rule.)
- Martellucci v. FDIC, 748 A.2d 829 (R.I.2000) (early articulation of public-safety rule reasoning.)