A heartwarming human-interest story, indeed: police Sgt. Ron Nametko of Denville, N.J. was hailed as a hero two years ago 
when he “talked a suicidal sheriff’s officer into putting down his weapon and surrendering. Now the sergeant, who has since retired with a disability, is suing the man who pointed a loaded gun at him, citing emotional distress from the incident.” Nametko’s suit also names a neighbor, Doug Wilkins, accusing him of aiding and abetting Patrick O’Connor’s actions. (AP/Newsday, Nov. 2; Bill Swayze and Margaret McHugh, “After saving man’s life, ex-Denville cop decides to sue him”, Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 2).
“Citing stress, cop sues man whose life he saved”
A heartwarming human-interest story, indeed: police Sgt. Ron Nametko of Denville, N.J. was hailed as a hero two years ago when he “talked a suicidal sheriff’s officer into putting down his weapon and surrendering. Now the sergeant, who has since retired with a disability, is suing the man who pointed a loaded gun at him, […]
4 Comments
Nearly every call taken by a police officer or fireman involves trauma and causes fear. If it did not, the citizen would handle the matter himself, and not call for professional rescuer help.
The Fireman’s Rule gets a nice review here, and applies to all emergency responders:
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinionPF.cfm?caseNo=25468
Briefly, the applicant to such jobs assumes the risk of these traumas (Gibson v. Leonard, 32 N.E. 182 (Ill. 1892)). This decision established the Fireman’s Rule. Beyond the assumption of the inherent trauma of the job, the emergency responder gets workmen’s comp. They are not guests owed host carefulness. They accepted the training and salary offered by the taxpayer to take on these traumas.
The court above did not say, if the responder were allowed to sue, he would sue after every response. “I was traumatized by seeing your guts hanging out at your car crash. I am suing the estate of the crash victim.”
Given the established track record of this Rule, we should follow the outcome of the preliminary motions. This claim would have reversed 100 years of torts precedent and case law.
The above cited decision also quotes a New Jersey statute permitting such action. “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:62A-21 (West 2001) (whenever any law enforcement officer or firefighter suffers injury while in the discharge of his official duties and that injury is the result of the neglect, willful omission, or willful or culpable conduct of any person or entity, other than that law enforcement officer’s or firefighter’s employer or co-employee, the injured law enforcement officer or firefighter may seek recovery from the person or entity whose neglect, wilful omission, or wilful or culpable conduct resulted in that injury).”
If I were a NJ emergency worker, I would accept minimal wage at work, and sue after every call, make a lot of money from emergency work in NJ. Even if there is no physical injury, I would sue for being upset and having to get therapy.
The rate of PTSD is high, and seems an occupational hazard in emergency workers.
The NJ statute cited above does not clarify the timing of the willful or culpable conduct. That is, does it apply to the original stupid act that caused the activation of the EMS system or does it apply to further stupid acts by the injured after EMS arrives to render aid?
Does it matter if the originally injured person never asked for assitance in the first place (whether through incapacity, lack of need, or they still don’t understand the gravity of their predicament)?
We have the Fireman’s rule because as a society we don’t want people to feel inhibited to call the police, fire, ambulance for assistance for fear of liability. All of these professionals are covered for their job related injuries so that they need not vicitmize the victims to be made financially whole. If the Worksmans Comp coverage is insufficient, then the time to rectify this is by collective bargaining before someone is damaged.
citing emotional distress from the incident
Let him sue, then the taxpayers should demand every dime of compensation this officer has received be returned with interest.
He defrauded them by misrepresenting himself as qualified for police work, and he’s just testified that he lacked the emotional constitution for such work.