DeLaire v. Kaskel

in thе stances. The defendant’s detention his concerns was the validating Further car, search of the subsequent within the and the fact that the driver was still cruiser had cruiser were constitution- next to the area where cocaine rear seat of the seated The defendant’s Removing ally proper found. defendant and justified. been detaining and then him for a violated. rights from the car were not constitutional un- were reasonable measures period short above, stated the defen- For the reasons cir- set potentially dangerous der this is affirmed. judgment dant’s conviction cumstances. remanded to papers this case are The criteria to the facts Applying Cortez Superior Court. above, that

referred to we conclude defen- on a dant’s detention was based reasonable suspicion from the events that resulted Rawnsley that observed after a Officer totality-of- stop. routine traffic Under the concept, the-circumstances we note downward, defendant’s furtive movements trial, sufficiently than detailed at more David DeLAIRE Rawnsley to warranted Officer become be- reasonably suspicious of defendant’s The reasonableness Officer

havior. KASKEL, et al. Rick H. Rawnsley’s suspicions heightened by the is 2002-477-Appeal. No. fact defendant’s movements mirrored pas- moments earlier those made Supreme of Rhode Island. Court then senger officer was whom the 22, 2004. Jan. possession. process arresting drug Moreover, or- time defendant was car, already asso- out of the

dered suspected drug ciated with someone of cocaine possession. presence car have led the officer infer could defendant, too, drug activi- was involved training, ty. experience Based on his infer- Rawnsley drew reasonable Officer circumstances, surrounding from the ences necessarily to detain defen- leading him permissi- challenged dant. The seizure on the reasonable ble because it was based experienced police officer suspicions of an criminal and articulated who observed might appear meaning behavior eye. to the untrained wholly innocuous Officer Rawns conclude that We articulable basis tеstimony ley’s reveals activity and that criminal suspecting detention of defen the isolation and under circum- dant were reasonable Reynolds, T. Esq.,

Mark for Defendant. WILLIAMS, C.J., Present: FLANDERS, GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM. plaintiff personal injury this ac- tion, (DeLaire), appeals David DeLaire entry summary judgment defendants, favor Rick and Louise (defendants). Kaskel We directed both parties appear why and show cause raised in appeal issues this summarily be decided. No such cause shown, been having proceed to decide appeal time. this The facts of this not in case are dispute. The plaintiff, an animal-control Greenwich, officer for the Town East property called defendants’ on Feb 16, 2000, ruary stray to remove a cat. The attempting defendants had been to remove yard previous cat months; five DeLaire testified that he had separate visited home on at least three attempting occasions corral the animal. day On in question, the defendants had already trapped the cat in a cardboard box at the time called animal control. pulled After into defendants’ driveway van, slipped and exited his snow, patch breaking and fell on managed get up arm. DeLaire from his defendants, fall cat and retrieve the sought medical attention later day. May

On DeLaire filed suit in defendants, against al- Superior Court negligence compensato- leging seeking damages The de- ry personal injury. summary judgment, moved for fendants Creamer, Wakefield, preсlud- asserting plaintiffs Ronald claim was Esq., J. (the “public safety rule” Plaintiff. ed officer’s rule). claim after the justice negligence officer’s hearing, the trial After icy driveway while inves- slipped on and entered granted defendants’ motion mailbox); tigating damaged a Martellucci judgment in their favor. Corp., Deposit Insurance 748 v. Federal argues appeal on that the The (R.I.2000) 829, (barring police A.2d 832 justice granting defendants’ trial erred negligent suing from owner officer summary judgment. He con- motion lot); v. Day Cas- parking maintenance apply that the rule does not tends (bar- 758, (R.I.1998) lowitz, 759 713 A.2d a because ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍he is neither facts of this case resulting from a ring police officer’s claim firefighter. a DeLaire police officer nor fall); A.2d slip fully, v. 665 Smith argues apply the rule does not also (R.I.1995) (barring 1333, police of- 1335-36 officer, because as an animal-control suing ficer from owner bar where simi- responding fatally patron shot bar self-de- firefighter. lar to officer or a fense); v. Casualty Surety & Co. Aetna (R.I.1993) (hold- de re This Court undertakes novo Vierra, 436, 619 A.2d 439 justice’s a a decision on mo view of trial ing firefighter’s applied rule offi- summary judgment, applying tion for v. firefighters); Mignone as cers well motion (R.I.1989) to determine that Mills, 35, same standards 556 A.2d 36 Fieldcrest trial court. Sakonnet Point Mari as the (barring firefighter who fell on water- Corp., 798 landowner); na Association v. Head suing soaked stairs from Cook Bluff (R.I.2002). 439, uphold will a Demetrakas, 398-99, A.2d 441 We 397, 275 v. 108 R.I. if, summary after re grant judgment (1971) 919, a verdict (directing A.2d 920-21 light most viewing the evidence police offi- for defеndant landowner when genu nonmoving party, to the no favorable premises to ar- cer entered defendant’s revealed, are ine issues of material fact larceny fugitive). pre- rest we moving judg is entitled to party and the question impression: of first sented with Id.; ment as a matter of law. J.R.P. animal-control offi- the rule does Co., Flour Associates v. Bess Eaton Donut conclude as matter cers? Because we (R.I.1996) (mem.). 285, not, 685 A.2d 286 we reverse trial law that it does summary judg- justice’s to grant decision case, In the current we asked ment in of defendants.1 favor an animal-control offi determine whether public safety officer’s rule derives safety The public cer falls within rule,” “firefighter’s the rule’s the common law Despite rule. the fact firefighter historically precluded might that an animal- suggest name which broad negli- ambit, recovering from “one whose in its we control officer is included fire to the gence causes contributes expressly held that have never injury or to the fire- in turn causes death employees po other than applies public Vierra, (quoting See, 619 at 437 e.g., fighter.” A.2d firefighters. So lice officers 37). (R.I. recently, Donahue, Mignone, 556 A.2d at More 60 banski v. 2002) the rule to both suing applied we have (barring officer from precluding firefighters, them resulting dog officers and injuries landlord landowners for attack); suing private A.2d from Krajewski Bourque, normal, curiam) (R.I.2001) confronting the (barring suffered while (per that classifies "animal-control officers” mindful of fact 1. We make decision falling has within the ambit nor dissent that neither any jurisdiction single officer’s rule. case in discovered jobs. foreseeable risks inherent officers and a form of Day, 713 A.2d at 759. Because Jersey the rule compensation. double New operates exception general as an Supreme Court has stated: duty exercise protect reasonable care to with the homeowner who hires “[A]s persons who may upon proper- come one’s roof, contractor to a weakened repair ty, have previously its approved appli- the taxpayer pays po- who the fire and cation a limited set of circumstances. departments lice to confront the risks Labrie v. Pace Membership Ware- occasioned own future acts of house, Inc., (R.I.1996) negligence expect pay again does not to (by construing narrowly the rule as an injured when exposed the officer is while exception general duty to exercise Otherwise, to those risks. individual cit- care, reasonable we seek avoid either police izens would compensate officers abolishing the rule entirely creating else risking injury, twice: once for once for it). exceptions numerous Freda, sustaining it.” Berko v. 93 N.J. previous

Our (1983). cases identified rationales to support two the rule. Mi today Our decision turns on the funda- gnone, 556 A.2d at 38-39. The first is concepts mental of fairness identified upon based of primary doctrine as argued above. The defendants have that sumption risk. This doctrine holds that are sufficiently animal-control officers sim- police officers and firefighters assume the ilar to police officers such that the rule normal, foreseeable risks inherent in their apply equally support both. To public as duties officers position, point defendants to the fact professions. enter those Id. at 39. Be officer, that as an animal-control DeLaire cause their normal duties involve assisting police plates, drove a vehicle with license situations, people dangerous these offi firearm, police-issued carried a was a po- cials assume those as a matter constable,2 reported lice to a ser- law. Id. Accordingly, police officers аnd geant, and used an office in the East firefighters are precluded from suing pri Department. Although Greenwich Police vate landowners to considerations, they these are valid are not normal, suffered from confronting those compelling for of our purposes present foreseeable risks inherent their chosen analysis. Instead, persuaded are that occupation. duties, the differences between train- The second underlying rationale the rule benefits, ing, compensation statutory is concepts justice.” one “fundamental Rhode protections afforded Island Vierra, 619 A.2d at (quoting Mignone, duties, and the firefighters, 39). 556 A.2d at com- Because training, benefits and of a pensates police officers and officer, municipality’s animal-control are confronting situations controlling. face, this Court has reasoned that officials should not Rhode Island officers and fire- be allowed seek com- fighters benefits of pensation for the receive the G.L.1956 negligence creates 45-19-1, provides § the need for their the statute that services the first place. firefighters injured (citing Mignone, 556 A.2d at officers and 39). To rule receive their full duty otherwise would be allow the line of shall argument employment independent 2. Defense counsel at oral as an admitted position DeLaire’s as constable animal-control officer. salary, injured well medical and ex as result a landowner’s as related respective city, ordinary town pеnses, negligence. from the employed. district fire where reasons, jus- the trial foregoing For the State, 45-19-1(a); Section Labbadia summary judgment granting tice’s decision (R.I.1986). Animal-control of is favor of the defendants reversed. ficers, however, enjoy protec not do judgment is vacated and case Compensation tions. in work-related Superior Court. remanded to juries suffered an animal-control officer Compensa is controlled the Workers’ FLANDERS, Justice, dissenting. 28-29-2(4). § Act.

tion G.L.1956 Another training difference concerns associated refusing Although police offi positions. with these (the rule) plaintiff, officer’s rule at a cers receive benefit of instruction on his animal- relies status academy, DeLaire testified officer, speсifically pointing to his control graduate police training from a did injured-on-duty ineligibility to recover Furthermore, academy. although the (IOD) benefits, not to the fact that he did chapter of rep same local the union police-training academy, graduate from police offi- resents both East Greenwich “relatively under-compensated” and to his as their cers and animal-control officers animal-control officer when status an bargaining agent, collective animal-control his compared with better-heeled non-police mem- officers considered But me firefighting brethren. it seems to union, separate of the and receive bers of package title and that the benefit Additionally, police contracts. officers particular public-safety officer involved significantly larger salary, from a benefit call for responding in to a homeowner’s program than animal- pension and benefit re- help including whether or she can — Finally, police officers control officers. (as to work- opposed cover IOD benefits statutorily protected employ- are a class of benefits) inju- ers’-compensation any in they enjoy Rhode Island because ees of or suffer in line ries he she protection of the Law Enforcement controlling factors duty not be the —should Rights Bill of to G.L. pursuant Officer’s to deciding in the rule whether title 42. chapter 1956 28.6 of any officer. this or public- look identified are Nor should we to whether distinctions above police- question with the levels of attended commensurate different academy, enjoyed protections training responsibility assumed officers of Law Enforcement Bill compared with animal-con- Officer’s Rights, the same or similar or received trol officers. Animal-control pension, com- and other benefits as other relatively under-compensated salary, when Instead, we public-safety officers. should firefighting with their pared brethren; underlying purposes they analyze not receive the same do benefits, pur- whether those training, and and rule and determine compensation, by applying it statutory protection poses would be served enjoy not do so, it Upon doing of title 42. facts this case. chapter § 45-19-1 and 28.6 ap- that the rule should apparent no becomes Accordingly, why we see reason funda- thereby ply to this bar concepts justice preclude plaintiff, mental de- seeking against homeowning re- tort claim animal-control officers private they when fendants. dress from landowners public-safety-officer’s dangerous compensates “The situations and it outgrowth firefighter’s the common-law them to confront such risks. Id. Like precluded against party counterparts, rule that suit their and fire animal- alleged negligence paid taxpaying whose caused or con control officers are injured often sit- tributed fire that killed confront the Caslowitz, firefighter.” in the course of their Day v. 713 uations аrise (R.I.1998). 758, work; case, A.2d also example, Soban Donahue, (R.I.2002); v. caught ski wild or domestic animal needs Warehouse, Membership v. Pace they may Labrie rescued. The fact that (R.I.1996). Inc., 678 A.2d This receive as much or benefits “deeply firefighter rule is rooted” in the common as a law officer or is besides and is based on principal point, they two rationales: which are compen- is that primary-assumption-of-the-risk appropriate doc at an level to sated confront trine and the other public- controlling fundamental the risks face in the town’s policy argue against population considerations that animal responding allowing proceed, taxpayers’ such lawsuits doing includ- calls for so. Nev- ertheless, permitting public- the unfairness of public-safety officers are not re- safety officers to damages every quired to assume risk conceivable very negligent work; acts they may that create the need that encounter for their employment rather, place. only first are deemed assume Mills, Mignone Fieldcrest certain risks that are known or that (R.I.1989). 38-39 Aetna reasonably anticipate they See also ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍Casualty will encoun- Vierra, Surety 436, job. Vierra, & Co. v. doing 619 438 ter while their 619 A.2d (R.I.1993). at 438. the Significantly, ordinary negli- gence respect of homeowners with to “[Pjrimary assumption of the risk is as- maintaining their is one property of those of sumption by the risk operation of law.” risks. Id. Vierra, 619 A.2d at It 438.3 arises from public-safety officers, the fact that upоn Fundamental public-policy consider- beginning and their performing gov- origin ations also underlie the and contin- employees, ernment hired “for spe- the the applicability Mignone, ued of rule. purpose cific of having people them assist previously 556 A.2d at 39. Court has This “ dangerous by situations.” indicated that ‘fundamental of concepts ” accepting such employment, they justice’ preclude public-safety assume as a matter of injuries law all normal recovering the risks of in tort for occa- incurring personal injuries ordinary property are inher- a owner’s sioned performing Vierra, ent in negligence. their duties. 619 A.2d at 438. law, Mignone, By trains, 556 A.2d public- employs, at 39. “Because the and public safety officers are to compensates public-safety deemed assume such officers” to en- taxpaying public ordinary the employs because counter situations caused the others, officers to in confronting negligence assist them of it homeowners Caslowitz, “Primary assumption liability. Day 3. of the risk differs 713 A.2d 'secondary' assumption (R.I.1998). of the risk prevail, n. 2 a must To defendant * * Vierra, Casualty Surety Aetna & Co. v. specific show that a knew of the (R.I.1993). 619 A.2d The latter is an danger question, appreciated its unreason- defense that affirmative individual defendants character, voluntarily exposed able him- liability plain- can assert to defeat even if the self to it. Id. already the tiff has defendant’s established to law facing to fear tort would be unfair “to allow such officers owners now very for negligent premiums the acts if suits increased insurance governmental the need for their create wrong public-safety of officer re type the employment place.” Day, first the (that is, help to call one sponds for unfairness, A.2d at 760. avoid this To who, taxpayer re unbeknownst to rule from effective- prevents these officers might eligible help, questing recovering ly double benefits). Lanza v. Pola obtain IOD See do; is, work the rule eliminates (Fla.1991). nin, 130, 132 581 So.2d initially that the com- risk will Indeed, purpose applying for the pensate public-safety officers the form rule, why should it public-safety officer’s salary employment-related and other officer, matter an animal-control whether braving dangerous situations benefits encountering personal responds officer firefighter, risk injury present, that such situations help? From call for homeowner’s allowing thereafter these same officers standpoint, he or she homeowner’s compensation in the receive additional lend hand wants damages form tort suffer problem involving some with immediate very from the same Sobanski, 792 example, in animal. For by negligent home- situations caused to a responded A.2d at en- compensated owners that owner’s call for about property Vierra, Id. See also counter. stray dog neighbor. that had attacked a rale, therefore, 438. The furthers officer, dog responding After the bit the public policy disallowing homeowner, negli- alleging tried suе effectively twice recovering officers from allowing dog escape. Id. at gence very need conduct creates the applied But this Court 58. Mignone, employment. for their the officer’s lawsuit. Id. at 60. barred A.2d at 39. case, however, majority allows the public policy The rule also furthers the officer to sue because public-safety tax- encouraging homeowners other officer, not a policeman. animal-control an payers freely solicit assistance why police officer be barred But officers, fear public-safety without negligent suing allegedly proper- they by such officers if will be sued officer? but not an animal-control ty owner injure taxpayer’s prop- themselves on why should the rеsult Sobanski And erty. Day, at 761. Narrow- See police on whether depending different ing scope of the rule —as officer, firefighter,' or an animal-control public-safe- does in this case—because call to the homeowner’s responded officer technically ty is not question officer injured police officers help? Because for and, there- police a true considered can benefits collect IOD fore, same sala- does not receive exact injured animal-control officer but genuine ry package benefit bene- only receive workers’ (for example, he can officer would receive officer went to Because fits? only compensation bene- workers’ thе ani- academy but police-training some benefits), will injured-on-duty fits but not not? Because the officer did mal-control deterring effect have the unfortunate Law En- protected officer is their assistance taxpayers in need of Rights but not Bill of Officer’s forcement to their summoning public-safety officers decision, animal-control officer? home- of this homes. As result justifications None of these very for exclud- employment need in the ing the place. animal-control officer first at from the 438.

rule, submit, I would anything what- my judgment, these same reasons soever to do with its rationale. Although justify applying the rule to animal-control there are certainly distinctions between too, They, officers as well. assume all the types these two оfficers normal in performing risks inherent them (just as there are distinctions po- between Moreover, too, they, duties. lice officers firefighters), they provide paid by the local taxpayers confront no justification basis or treating them risks and sometimes dan- any differently Indeed, under the rule. gerous situations by stray caused animals justice, justification there is no and other problems animal-related justice in countenancing such different re- arise in our various communities. The fact sults depending on which type public- they might not receive as much com- responds to the homeowner’s pensation a police officer or a firefighter Thus, call help. it makes no sense at reflect, in part, least the reduced all to mе to bar officers and fire- confront, level of risk typically it fighters from suing homeowners in these change does not the fact that never- same situations while allowing risks, animal-con- paid theless confront by the trol officers to do so. risks, to confront these respond emergency help. Consequent- calls for date,

To this Court has not hesitat ly, too, they, should be barred from recov- ed when it was asked to extend the com ering alleged negligent conduct of “firefighter’s mon-law rule” from fire homeowners and other taxpayers cre- fighters whom the ates or applied courts first contributes to the need for their —to employment place. rule—-to cover police officers as first well. Vierra, See 619 A.2d at 439. reasoning, Based on this courts Vienu, 619 A.2d at we affirmed that jurisdictions have extended the rule from the two principal underlying rationales department and fire employees to firefighters’ rule argued in favor of extend personnel. medical gener- scope beyond ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍just its firefighters to ally, Conder, Joseph B. Application of include officers. Acknowledging the “Firemen’s Rule’’ to Bar Recovery by primary-assumption-of-the-risk doctrine, Emergency Injured Medical Personnel officers, we reasoned that police like fire to, Responding of, Emergency, or at Scene fighters, assumed all the normal in risks 1079, (1991). § 89 A.L.R.4th 1083 3 As in herent in performing their professional opinion, our Vienu these courts based duties. Similarly, Id. we noted that other primary-assumption- their decisiоns on the public-policy weighed considerations also doctrine, citing of-the-risk the same in favor of extending the rule to the policy considerations that underlie that public-safety officers, because these like Co., rule. See Melton v. Crane Rental 742 firefighters, receive them salaries from the 875, (D.C.1999); Hiles, Siligato 876 paid by taxes local property owners. 64, 1172, N.J.Super. Moreover, applying (Ct.Law the rule to Div.1989); Sauer, offi Maltman v. cers as firefighters (1975). well as to also would Wash.2d 530 P.2d prevent these public-safety officers from precedents jurisdictions These from other unfairly recovering taxpay twice for the represent judicial abandoning trend of alleged negligent ers’ strictly job-title conduct that created or рublic- defined oriented in As

safety in of a more duties these circumstances. we said officers rule favor doctrine, professional Day, “[tjraversing broad rescuer which in 713 A.2d at accu- occupations than may walkways include other of snow and ice on mulations firefighters, or in analysis officers and an driveways one of the risks inherent the partic- each case to determine whether perform- public-safety in a officer’s normal injured professional ular in a rescue as- job during of her in state ance his or this particular type sumed the of risk that led if plaintiff the winter months.” even Conder, § injury. 89 A.L.R.4th 2[a] very knowledge not actual of did this (collect- 1082; § 4 at but see id. 1084-85 property, condition on defendants’ to extend the rule to refusing cases reasonably anticipated such should have emergency personnel). medical event, con- any paid risk. In he was risk; front he can recover workers’ analysis

Consistent with our Vierra resulting any incapacity jurisdic- with those decisions work; and, thus, he al- should be extending rule public- tions to other compensatory further safety professionals lowed to besides officers, in- damages I believe that homeowners and their the rule to animal-control officer surers under these circumstances. similarly and to other Labrie, Citing argues that the situated, regardless specific of their title or ex- public-safety officer’s should not job irrespective of classification and wheth- tend to him animal-control officers beсause eligible or- er IOD benefits respond [of] “do not same level compensation. Applying workers’ emergencies firefight- as officers or doctrine, primary-assumption-of-the-risk situations, many may be ers.” well we should deem this animal-control officer Indeed, true. that consideration doubtless ac- having assumed risk when he of explains, part, why at least in their level suffering inju- cepted personal less compensation and benefits alleged a property ries caused owner’s officers, such than other ordinary negligence when the homeowner But offi- firefighters. public-safety authority help summons situations respond cers still picking up stray animal from their suffering personal and assume the risk of premises regardless of whiсh branch — Thus, as in injuries in their work. Soban- type public- service or what government animals, case, and this wild vicious ski safety actually responds to call. stray stuck in dogs, and cats cardboard Certainly, slipping on ice snow defen- boxes, trees, tangled power lines driveway dants’ was one inher- involving do circumstances present plaintiffs performance duty of his ent heightened responding public- risk community. pick up stray animals — n suffering personal Day, (police 713 A.2d at 761 officer who Cf. typically situations especially because such slipped investigating on ice while an acti- require immediate suing alarm held vated barred paid this taxpaying public kind that the alleged negligence). owners for property provide. officer tо animal-control Soban- dog-bite injury as risk a was Just the of (holding 792 A.2d at 59 that the officer assumed one ski officer, by a who was bitten case, so, too, police barred of in the Sobanski risk same, of stray during investigation an dog snow or ice was a foreseeable slipping on home- suing allegedly negligent unexpected and not an outcome risk escape). allowing dog his animal-control owner plaintiff performing that, plaintiff correctly in La- he purposes, notes tents and held himself out brie, only A.2d at that an the as not a mere member we said as that term underlying department, rationale for was was the rule “the Sobanski, (holding in used A.2d at 59 unexpected sudden nature of the that the “members of the state’s rule bars emergency typically provided” by service departments” bringing and fire public-safety officers. explained We actions), tort but also as an actual it expect is unreasonable to property own- such, he estopped officer. As should be prepar- ers to exercise reasonable care in asserting his conduct from that the rule ing for sudden and en- unforeseeable does not to him. these safety trance of officers when responding emergency situations. event, any when plaintiff was sum- * * * conditions,” “Absent pick up moned to defendants’ home to this concluded, “the ap- cat, rule should not be stray it allegedly where trapped plicable negligence box, to bar against actions in a cardboard he knowingly risked tortfeasors.” Id. at dangers 872. various encountering that were so, doing including inherent in the fact that Labrie, relying By however, plaintiff on question in property might not have only minimizes not the often substantial been of ice and snow or cleared otherwise inherent the usual performing as maintained in safe a condition he officer, duties of animal-control but also Labrie, preferred. would have Compare the time-sensitive nature of conditions (describing injury 678 A.2d at risk or under which such usually services are re- during a prearranged inspection premis- quested and delivered. types Like other “remote”) es with Day, 713 A.2d at 761- officers, of public-safety animal-control of- (holding injury arising that the risk of require ficers’ duties often traversing walkway a snow-covеred respond them quickly to a host time- potential crime scene is incidental involving sensitive situations animals in the performance and inherent in the of a pub- town—a certain number of which inevita- duties). lic-safety normal officer’s Unlike bly truly involve dangerous emergen- will Labrie, fire-department employee cies—at least to the and the homeowners who arrived on scene a shirt and tie taxpayers requesting help. such appointed certify at a prearranged time to regard, In it is of pass- more than anticipated what he would be a properly ing significance to note that animal- this functioning sprinkler sys- fire-alarm and not only po- control officer like a dressed tem, id., plaintiff responded to a call liceman, worked out of an office potentially dangerous about situ- station, and drove a van with scene, Thus, upon arriving ation. at the side, police lettering stenciled on the not know did whether also was vested with powers, arrest carried eat in trapped stray question would be firearm, badge. wore a constable’s rabid, wild, Although plaintiff violent. If did not involve some measure correctly that the lective-bargaining agreement, public-safety all in- cation officer’s rule. ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍for stated, public policy it com- Day, (“public-safety against at

See 713 A.2d public-safety twice for en- premis- pensate held to officers officers should be take inju- countering personal all the usual risks-of find them and assume es in their ry performing that are inherent performing risks inherent their usual 760; Day, at investigating poten- duties. duties while added.) at 39. Mignone, 556 A.2d emergencies”). (Emphasis tial Otherwise, any public-safety officer could Nevertheless, though plaintiffs even given by pointing out that a skirt rule that he face contemplated duties would summons for could have been dangerous situations when con- potentially fraught danger with turned out—after the fronting types of fauna and domes- various incident, relatively fact—to be a uneventful town, large ticated at wildlife except injuries he or she suffered. majority permits plaintiff recov- opinion injuries: Labrie, danger initially twice his he can

In because the risk of er for salary risking recover and benefits for fire-department so em- his remote —the these and that are the usual ployee on the a shirt and other arrived scene called to a grist public-safety perform inspection tie to a routine a residence; then can taxpayer’s declined recover prearranged appointment —we benefits; and compensation now apply the officer’s rule. La- workers’ public-safety brie, damages against tort Conversely, in he also 678 A.2d at 871. re- for suffer- homeowners and their insurers to a to remove a sponding forthwith call Vierra, injuries. ing such foreseeable See trapped stray premises cat from the of a By allowing plaintiff this at 438. owner, signifi- this faced property damages in to recover tort addition his risks, arriving cant as evidenсed on salary normal and workers’ uni- property wearing defendants’ benefits, case under- the decision this form, firearm, driving an auto- carrying policy against awarding public mines this license and plates mobile with letter- compensation. public-safety officers double ing, powers. arrest In possessing Day, A.2d at 760. Labrie, short, case is not one unlike this exigencies that is “devoid of usual addition, by refusing In present public-safety rule, public-safety officer’s fire, crime, hies to of a or some the scene discouraging homeowners other at 869. other crisis.” Id. factu- soliciting taxpayers the assistance of al distinctions between this case La- now will public-safety officers because applying public-safety brie of- warrant liability аnd in- worry have to about tort acting ficer’s rule to animal-control officers if the premiums creased re- insurance plain- similar to what this circumstances turns out to be a bona sponding officer tiff encountered. firefighter, So- fide Day, banski officer neverthe- primary-assumption- addition to their injures himself or herself on less doctrine, public-policy of-the-risk Lanza, 132. property. See So.2d weigh apply- considerations also in favor noted, justice this when the officer’s As the motion types request is true for other to defendants’ plaintiff. plaintiff responded As cat, officers, plain- stray it paid pick up situa- call or provided him with various been routine salary tiff’s If had in fact a true benefits, tion. been including compensation, workers’ example, ra- emergency involving, performing his as an animal- services — bid, infected, stray or a violent cat—then our law has often control officer. As ease clearly the defendants would have re- plaintiff’s

quired professional expertise in Edward R. et al. D’ALLESANDRO handling Public-policy this animal. con- siderations, therefore, encourage should

citizens to seek from animal- assistance TARRO, capacity Ronald his control officers in with dealing potentially of the as treasurer Town decision, animals. But re- Barrington et al. grettably, represents an unfortunate set- all, back to that worthy goal. After 2003-218-Appeal. No. only injustice

“rale seeks to eliminate the Supreme Court Rhode Island. which arises when an officer sues the in- dividual whose conduct rise gave to the 2, 2004. Feb. very need for his or services.” her Vier- ra, case, 440. In this howev-

er, injustice eliminated but is not perpetuated because the allows officer sue the individ- ual conduct rise gave very whose

need for services. lesson here for homeowners? Ask genuine for officer or firefighter calling just for not help. Do call the dispatcher, help, ask hope for the best. ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍And if what looks like a arrives, him or bar her from premises until you ascertain he or whether she is to collect able IOD benefits, went to police-training acade-

my, and can advantage take of the Law

Enforcement Rights. Officer’s Bill of Do uniform, fooled van, police lettering on badge, They the gun. enough protect are not you! you Better again call firefighter

real than merely looks, acts, settle someone who walks, who, and talks like one analysis, may eligible

final not be to collect benefits, only IOD compensation. workers’ reasons, respectfully For I dissent justice’s entry affirm the would motion summary of a favor judgment defendants. notes incident turned out risky business and encountering potential- on fairly (except to be for his fall routine ly conditions, why ice), would potential danger, it the risk of police-officer need these accoutrements post not a assessment of the actual hoc animal-control perform his duties as an particular from each danger arising situa- formally even if officer? he was not tion hie- involving officer’s scene, designated as a col- appli- some determines the

Case Details

Case Name: DeLaire v. Kaskel

Court Name: Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date Published: Jan 22, 2004

Citation: 842 A.2d 1052

Docket Number: 2002-477-Appeal

Court Abbreviation: R.I.