Justin LUND v. MILFORD HOSPITAL, INC.
168 A.3d 479
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Justin Lund, an on-duty Connecticut state trooper, went to Milford Hospital ER to check on two troopers injured by Dale Pariseau, a violent psychiatric patient brought in by ambulance.
- Hospital staff represented that Pariseau was restrained for psychiatric observation; Lund relied on those representations when he checked on the injured officers.
- Pariseau later went unaccompanied and unrestrained into a locked bathroom, then burst out throwing a garbage can of hot water and urine; Lund pursued, slipped, and was injured while subduing Pariseau.
- Lund sued Milford Hospital for ordinary negligence alleging improper supervision, security, restraint, and staff training; the trial court struck the original complaint and later sustained the hospital’s objection to Lund’s substitute complaint.
- Justice Robinson (dissenting) argues the firefighter’s rule (professional rescuer doctrine) should bar Lund’s negligence claims because his injuries arose from risks inherent in his role as a first responder, and he was at the scene because of the emergency created by Pariseau.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the firefighter’s rule to this claim | Lund: He was not summoned by the hospital; the injury resulted from the hospital’s subsequent negligence in failing to control Pariseau | Hospital: Lund was a first responder injured responding to a danger created by Pariseau; firefighter’s rule bars recovery | Dissent (Robinson, J.): Firefighter’s rule applies and bars Lund’s negligence claim |
| Whether a first responder must be formally summoned for the rule to apply | Lund: Formal summons required for the rule to bar recovery | Hospital: No formal summons needed; nexus between tortfeasor and emergency suffices | Dissent: Formal summons not required; fortuitous presence does not avoid the rule |
| Scope of the ‘‘subsequent negligence’’ exception | Lund: Hospital’s negligence after Pariseau’s arrival is a valid exception | Hospital: Subsequent acts do not defeat the rule where the danger is the same emergency that brought responder there | Dissent: Exception inapplicable; hospital’s acts were part of the emergency nexus that brought Lund to the scene |
| Public policy basis for barring tort recovery by professional rescuers | Lund: Public policy shouldn’t bar recovery for hospital’s negligence here | Hospital: Public policy favors channeling injuries to public benefits and limiting tort exposure | Dissent: Public policy supports applying the firefighter’s rule and limiting tort suits by first responders |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaminski v. Fairfield, 216 Conn. 29 (1990) (early Connecticut recognition of firefighter’s rule principles)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (1998) (Connecticut precedent on limits of tort recovery for rescuers)
- Levandoski v. Cone, 267 Conn. 651 (2004) (obiter language discussing scope of the firefighter’s rule)
- Seibert Security Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal. App. 4th 394 (1993) (applied firefighter’s rule where officer present fortuitously but acted to subdue patient)
- Kelhi v. Fitzpatrick, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1149 (1994) (followed Seibert; barred recovery for officer who responded while off duty)
- Higgins v. Rhode Island Hosp., 35 A.3d 919 (R.I. 2012) (applied firefighter’s rule to rescuer injured restraining psychiatric patient in ER)
- Ellinwood v. Cohen, 87 A.3d 1054 (R.I. 2014) (formulation of public-safety officer’s rule and its elements)
- Apodaca v. Willmore, 306 Kan. 103 (2017) (recognized limited exceptions to the firefighter’s rule, including subsequent negligence and misrepresentation)
- Read v. Keyfauver, 233 Ariz. 32 (App. 2013) (applied rule where officer’s duties compelled his presence at scene)