Jeanette M. Sanders v. Francis Alger
375 P.3d 1199
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- Sanders was an independent provider under a DES contract who assisted Alger, a homebound elderly man, with transfers and ambulation from 2004 until 2011.
- In June 2011, while helping Alger from his wheelchair into a vehicle, Alger began to fall; Sanders attempted to assist, was pinned by him, and suffered serious injuries.
- Sanders sued Alger for negligence; Alger moved for summary judgment arguing the firefighter’s rule (or analogous reasoning) barred recovery and that he owed no duty because Sanders had a contractual obligation to protect him from falls.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Alger relying on Espinoza (the firefighter’s rule); Sanders appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the firefighter’s rule should not be expanded to caregivers and that Alger owed Sanders the ordinary duty of reasonable care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firefighter’s rule bars a caregiver’s negligence claim | Sanders: firefighter’s rule should not apply to paid caregivers; she may sue for negligence | Alger: rule should extend to any professional paid to confront the hazard (here, risk of falls) | Court: declined to expand firefighter’s rule to caregivers; rule remains limited to traditional first responders |
| Whether Alger owed a duty to Sanders given her contractual duty to protect him | Sanders: contract does not eliminate Alger’s independent duty to exercise reasonable care | Alger: Sanders’s contractual obligation to prevent falls means Alger owed no duty to her | Court: Alger owed the general duty to use reasonable care to avoid harming others; contractual allocation does not extinguish that duty |
| Whether contractual assumption of risk removes duty or creates question for jury | Sanders: assumption of risk is a factual question for a jury; contract can’t deprive jury of that issue | Alger: contract shifts risk and relieves him of duty | Court: contract allocations are treated as assumption-of-risk issues for jury; they cannot as a matter of law eliminate duty |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on breach/nonnegligence grounds | Sanders: disputed facts (when and how fall started) preclude summary judgment on breach | Alger: his medical condition caused the fall and no reasonable juror could find breach | Court: trial court did not decide this ground; remanded for further proceedings to address breach in light of duty ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinoza v. Schulenburg, 212 Ariz. 215 (2006) (articulates firefighter’s rule barring professional rescuers from suing for injuries sustained performing duties)
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (2007) (duty is a legal question for the court; issues of duty vs. facts clarified)
- Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500 (1983) (general rule: duty to avoid creating unreasonable risks to others)
- 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., 219 Ariz. 200 (2008) (contracts that purport to relieve duties equate to assumption of risk and are jury issues)
- Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 210 Ariz. 403 (2005) (assumption of risk under contract is for jury; contractual shifts don’t eliminate duty as matter of law)
- Morris v. Ortiz, 103 Ariz. 119 (1968) (standard for negligence: reasonable person under like circumstances)
- Coburn v. City of Tucson, 143 Ariz. 50 (1984) (summary judgment appropriate where no reasonable juror could find breach of duty)