In 2001, Harry Ruiz, a municipal police officer in New Jersey, was called to a disturbance at a local ballroom, which had been rented by a nearby sports bar to televise some World Cup matches. By the time he responded, the altercation had moved onto the street outside the building. When he responded, he was assaulted by one of the patrons, and he received head and neck injuries which left him permanently disabled.
This, obviously, was the fault of the bar, as well as the owner of the ballroom. The claim? They failed to provide adequate security. To recap: a trained police officer responds to reports of violence, gets injured, and sues the owner of the premises on the theory that they should have had security guards at the site to protect him from the people he had come to arrest!
Traditionally, the Firefighters Rule meant that police and firefighters were not allowed to sue for injuries they incurred while doing their job, in part based on the theory that this was the risk they were paid to take. But this week, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Ruiz could proceed with his lawsuit. Although the state Supreme Court here is generally considered the most activist in the country, it’s the state legislature at fault in this case. The court was simply straightforwardly interpreting the words of the 1994 statute which abolished the Firefighters Rule in New Jersey; a copy of the court opinion is here.
So, be careful when you call the police or fire department for help; you might find yourself being sued by the people who were supposed to be assisting you.
Walter previously covered an even more outrageous case involving this law: Nov. 2006.
4 Comments
If I were 22, I would take the taxpayer’s police academy training, their workmen’s comp, their salary. However, these would be starting points on the road to becoming a billionaire.
Every time a mugger stands on a sidewalk, scares me with a knife? I would sue the property owner for inadequate premises security and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
http://www.west.net/~smith/distress.htm
My partner could make out, as an upset bystander.
Every time I show up to a bank robbery, same thing, sue the bank. Every time I show up at a domestic disturbance, sue the landlord of the battling couple.
I get offended by the smell, writing a ticket for a violation of a pooper scooper law? Sue the dog owner for chemical battery, an intentional tort with punitive damages. Ticket is $10, lawsuit is $100,000, to deter.
I could generate a lawsuit at every encounter, as a police officer.
The taxpayer should try to sue the police officer to retrieve its expenses for training and workmen’s comp, since subrogation may apply.
What is the police attendance policy for civil suits? Within a short time, the police officer would be in deposition or at civil trial full time, as he generates 100’s of lawsuits from every police encounter.
Doesn’t Overlawyered occasionally comment on the timeliness of the litigation process? Six years later, and the decision is that he can proceed with the lawsuit. How long until the case is done?
Sadly, six years is probably not long enough to be noteworthy, at least compared to some other legal glaciers. For example, we are still waiting to find out the fate of the Washington Redskins trademarks. That case started in September 1992.
Zubon, I almost did comment on that, but Bill is right: it isn’t that long by Overlawyered standards.
But don’t lose heart — all this legal wrangling was just over whether the lawsuit could proceed to trial at all. We haven’t seen the trial yet, let alone any potential appeals from the verdict. It could easily go several more years.