WATSON USED CARS, LLC v. KIRKLAND Et Al.
805 S.E.2d 920
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 12, 2013, a Watson Used Cars employee mowed and blew wet grass clippings onto Highway 253; Watson concedes negligence in that act.
- Later that day Robert Lynch lost control on the wet clippings, overturned, and called 911 reporting an overturned vehicle with injuries (no mention of clippings).
- Deputies James Todd Kirkland and Robert Snider responded with lights and sirens; Kirkland slowed, unfastened his seat belt to exit quickly, braked behind Snider, encountered the same wet clippings, slid, left the roadway, and struck a tree.
- Kirkland was seriously injured, has been on disability, and is receiving workers’ compensation benefits.
- Kirkland sued Watson for negligence and later sought punitive damages alleging willful misconduct; Watson moved for summary judgment invoking the Fireman’s Rule.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the Court of Appeals granted interlocutory review and reversed, holding the Fireman’s Rule bars Kirkland’s claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the Fireman’s Rule | Kirkland: his injury was from a hazard (wet clippings) unknown to him and thus not the same negligence that required his presence. | Watson: Kirkland was injured by the same negligence (clippings) that caused Lynch’s wreck and prompted the response, so the rule bars recovery. | Fireman’s Rule applies; Kirkland’s suit barred because he was injured by the same negligence that required his presence. |
| Whether the clippings were an "extrinsic act" | Kirkland: the clippings were an independent, subsequent hazard distinct from the reason he was called (Lynch’s need). | Watson: there is no distinct extrinsic act; the clippings both caused Lynch’s crash and Kirkland’s injury. | No extrinsic act found; same negligent act caused both crashes. |
| Mantrap/pitfall exception to Fireman’s Rule | Kirkland: wet clippings were an unknown pitfall or mantrap, permitting recovery. | Watson: mantrap requires deliberate, hidden peril set to injure; no evidence of intent here. | Exception rejected; no evidence Watson deliberately created a trap. |
| Wilful and wanton conduct exception (punitive damages) | Kirkland: blowing clippings onto road was willful/wanton, removing Fireman’s Rule bar. | Watson: no evidence of intent or extreme indifference to infer willful/wanton conduct. | Exception rejected; record lacks evidence of intent or wantonness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Gaither, 219 Ga. App. 646 (public safety officers barred from recovering for injuries caused by the negligence that brought them to the scene)
- Bycom Corp. v. White, 187 Ga. App. 759 (Fireman’s Rule bars recovery when the same negligence necessitating presence causes the injury)
- Ingram v. Peachtree South, Ltd., 182 Ga. App. 367 (one cannot complain of negligence that created the occasion for his engagement)
- Frank Mayes & Assocs. v. Massood, 238 Ga. App. 416 (mantrap doctrine requires deliberate preparation of premises to cause injury)
- Scully v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 332 Ga. App. 873 (mantraps are deliberately set, hidden perils)
- Gadd v. Warwick, 339 Ga. App. 802 (summary judgment proper where record lacked evidence of prior dangerous incidents to show wantonness)
- Kapherr v. MFG Chem., Inc., 277 Ga. App. 112 (Fireman’s Rule applied where injury resulted from the negligence that necessitated presence)
- Gaither v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 235 Ga. App. 603 (Fireman’s Rule does not apply where defendant’s subsequent negligent acts, not the initial negligence, caused the injury)