326 Conn. 788
Conn.2017Background
- Officer Robert Sepega (municipal police officer) sued Lawrence DeLaura after Sepega was injured entering DeLaura’s home, where DeLaura had barricaded himself after violating a protective order.
- The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the negligence claim on grounds the common-law firefighter’s rule barred recovery; the appellate posture reached the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- The core legal question is whether the firefighter’s rule (which limits negligence claims by first responders) bars ordinary negligence claims by police officers against non–landowner tortfeasors in non‑premises contexts.
- The concurrence (Robinson, J.) agrees the firefighter’s rule does not bar Sepega’s claim on these facts but criticizes the majority’s broader reliance on Levandoski v. Cone to limit the rule to premises liability.
- The concurrence argues for a policy‑based firefighter’s rule that preserves exceptions (e.g., fleeing suspects, independent tortfeasors, subsequent negligence, failure to warn) while protecting citizens from liability for summoning aid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of firefighter’s rule to Sepega’s negligence claim | Sepega: his ordinary negligence claim against DeLaura is not barred because DeLaura’s conduct (barricading, resisting) created the risk | DeLaura: firefighter’s rule bars officer’s negligence claims arising from duties performed in line of duty | Court (concurrence): firefighter’s rule does not bar the claim on these facts; duty may be imposed against fleeing/resisting suspects |
| Scope of Levandoski v. Cone | Sepega: Levandoski supports allowing recovery where defendant was not a landowner and actively created risk | DeLaura: Levandoski and majority limit firefighter’s rule to premises liability, precluding recovery in similar non‑landowner contexts | Concurrence: Levandoski should be read narrowly—it does not abolish the firefighter’s rule generally; it only permits suits against suspects/perpetrators who create danger |
| Role of public policy (chilling calls for help) | Sepega: policy should not impose liability that deters citizens from summoning aid; exceptions should be recognized | DeLaura: public‑policy rationales for firefighter’s rule are inapplicable here (per Levandoski/majority) | Concurrence: public‑policy concerns remain important; rule should be preserved as flexible, balancing encouraging calls for help against allowing recovery in limited cases |
| Appropriate common‑law formulation vs. broad abolition | Sepega: common law should allow first responders limited redress against independent tortfeasors/suspects | DeLaura: majority reading effectively confines rule to premises liability, risking overbroad consequences | Concurrence: adopt policy‑based rule with defined exceptions (independent tortfeasors, subsequent negligence, failure to warn/misrepresentation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Levandoski v. Cone, 267 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2004) (held firefighter’s rule did not bar police officer’s negligence claim in facts involving a fleeing suspect and limited non‑landowner context)
- Kaminski v. Fairfield, 216 Conn. 29 (Conn. 1990) (refused to impose duty to warn on homeowners who summoned crisis team and police; emphasized public policy of encouraging calls for help)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (Conn. 1998) (refused to impose duty on alarm monitoring service for remote consequences of false alarm; emphasized chilling effect and social costs)
- Roberts v. Rosenblatt, 146 Conn. 110 (Conn. 1959) (seminal Connecticut decision articulating firefighter’s rule as premised in premises‑liability distinctions)
- Berko v. Freda, 93 N.J. 81 (N.J. 1983) (police officer injured in chase could not sue owner of stolen vehicle; court distinguished criminals as proper defendants for intentional assaults)
- Baldonado v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 143 N.M. 288 (N.M. 2008) (advocates a public‑policy approach preserving firefighter’s rule while allowing limited rescuer recovery)