430 S.W.3d 765
Ark.2013Background
- On June 20, 2011, decedent (a TDOT HELP program operator) stopped to assist Pigue, whose commercial tractor-trailer stalled in the left lane on I-55 after running out of fuel; decedent parked in front of Pigue’s truck with emergency lights and attempted to help restart the engine.
- A following heavy truck collided with Pigue’s stalled truck from behind, killing the decedent.
- Nowicki (executor and wrongful-death/survival plaintiff) alleged Pigue negligently ran out of fuel, overloaded the truck, failed to warn or place reflectors, and failed to call for traffic control, causing the fatal collision.
- Pigue moved for summary judgment invoking the Fireman’s Rule/professional-rescuer doctrine as a complete bar to recovery; he produced the TDOT HELP Program manual describing HELP operators as first responders who assist motorists and manage traffic, including providing fuel and placing traffic-control devices.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment, finding the doctrine applied to publicly paid roadside-assistance workers whose duties include confronting traffic hazards; Nowicki appealed, arguing the doctrine should not cover HELP operators and that Pigue’s conduct was willful and wanton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fireman’s Rule/professional-rescuer doctrine bars recovery by a TDOT HELP operator | Nowicki: HELP operator is not a professional rescuer in the Waggoner sense; doctrine should not be extended to roadside-assist workers | Pigue: HELP operators are publicly paid first responders whose duties include confronting traffic hazards; doctrine bars recovery | Court: Doctrine applies — HELP operators assume traffic-related risks as part of employment, so Pigue owed no duty to protect him |
| Whether a categorical rule applies or a fact-specific inquiry is required to determine who assumes the risk | Nowicki: Extension to HELP workers is inconsistent with limiting/abolishing trend; doctrine should not be expanded | Pigue: Waggoner supports public-policy bar where worker is paid to assume the risk | Court: Declined categorical rule; adopted fact-focused test and concluded HELP operator’s duties required assuming the risk at issue |
| Whether willful or wanton conduct by the defendant defeats the doctrine | Nowicki: Alleged willful/wanton conduct (driving with insufficient fuel) creates exception or question of fact | Pigue: Rule bars claim regardless; no willful/wanton conduct established | Court: No genuine issue of material fact that running out of fuel was willful/wanton; therefore did not reach whether such conduct would create an exception |
| Whether prior cases (e.g., Catlett) preclude applying the doctrine to public servants like HELP operators | Nowicki: Catlett (constable) supports limiting doctrine | Pigue: Catlett is inapposite because the injured person there was not acting in official capacity | Court: Distinguished Catlett and applied Waggoner framework to hold doctrine applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Waggoner v. Troutman Oil Co., 320 Ark. 56 (1995) (adopted the Fireman’s Rule on public-policy grounds — professional rescuers may be barred from recovery for risks inherent to their employment)
- Catlett v. Stewart, 304 Ark. 637 (1991) (discussed by parties; court distinguished because injured constable there was not acting in official capacity)
- BPS, Inc. v. Parker, 345 Ark. 381 (2001) (summary-judgment standard and purpose reiterated)
- Shepherd v. Washington Cnty., 331 Ark. 480 (1998) (definition of willful and wanton conduct: deliberate intent or utter indifference to safety)
- Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. McNeill Trucking Co., 309 Ark. 80 (1992) (discussion of circumstances insufficient to show willful/wanton misconduct)