Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger, 394 P.3d 1083

Sanders, an independent-contractor in-home caregiver for DES, assisted Alger, a developmentally disabled and mobility-limited patient, when he fell and seriously injured her in 2011.
Sanders sued Alger for negligence, alleging he negligently placed himself in danger and required rescue.
Alger moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no duty owed to Sanders, (2) the firefighter’s rule bars recovery, and (3) no reasonable juror could find negligence; trial court granted summary judgment on firefighter’s rule grounds.
The court of appeals reversed, holding Alger owed a duty of reasonable care and the firefighter’s rule did not apply.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide: (1) whether a patient owes a duty of reasonable care to a caregiver, and (2) whether the firefighter’s rule bars a caregiver’s negligence claim.
The Supreme Court held patients owe a duty of reasonable care to their caregivers based on the direct relationship and refused to extend the firefighter’s rule to bar caregiver recovery; it vacated part of the court of appeals opinion, reversed the trial court, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a patient owes a duty of reasonable care to an in‑home caregiver	Sanders: patient owed duty to avoid creating risk to caregiver; rescue doctrine supports liability	Alger: no duty; imposing one would chill use of state caregiving services and conflict with her contractual role	Court: Yes — a duty arises from the direct caregiver–patient relationship; recognizing duty does not establish breach or liability
Whether the firefighter’s rule bars caregiver recovery	Sanders: rule inapplicable; she was not a professional rescuer; rule should be narrow	Alger: caregiver paid with public funds, PIP available, and her employment resulted from his disabilities — so rule should apply	Court: No — firefighter’s rule limited to professional public safety rescuers and on‑duty obligations; does not bar caregiver claims
Whether patient’s contractual expectation (caregiver assumed risk) negates duty	Sanders: assumption of risk is a jury fact, not a duty question	Alger: Sanders’ contract and his care plan show she assumed the risk	Court: Contractual assumption of risk is a factual issue for the jury, not a categorical no‑duty rule
Whether this decision establishes liability on the facts	Sanders: (n/a)	Alger: argued no reasonable juror could find negligence	Court: Did not decide breach or causation; Alger’s disabilities remain relevant to the reasonable‑person standard; summary judgment on negligence not resolved here

Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236 (appellate review and summary judgment standard)
Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (elements of negligence and duty analysis)
Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500 (general duty principles and public policy)
Espinoza v. Schulenburg, 212 Ariz. 215 (adoption of rescue doctrine and discussion of firefighter’s rule)
Alhambra Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 165 Ariz. 38 (duty as relationship‑based inquiry)
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 210 Ariz. 403 (assumption of risk as jury question)
Grable v. Varela, 115 Ariz. 222 (context on public‑funded employees and related policy considerations)