## Facts

- Jeffrey Minnich worked as a public safety officer for the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC).
- While on duty, Minnich assisted in loading medical waste from MUSC’s premises onto an unoccupied tractor-trailer owned by Med-Waste, Inc.
- The truck began rolling toward a public street.
- Minnich ran to the truck, entered it, and stopped it.
- Minnich alleged he suffered serious injuries proximately caused by defendants’ acts or omissions and sought tort damages.
- Defendants asserted the firefighter’s rule barred recovery because Minnich was injured while performing his public safety duties.
- In a federal negligence action, the district court certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court whether the firefighter’s rule barred an emergency professional from recovering tort damages from the negligent party causing the injury.

## Issues

1. Whether South Carolina recognizes the firefighter’s rule as part of its common law.
2. Whether the firefighter’s rule, if recognized, bars an emergency professional injured in the course of duty from recovering tort damages from a negligent defendant.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court answered the certified question “No.”
- The court held South Carolina does not adopt the firefighter’s rule as part of its common law.
- The rule therefore does not categorically bar an emergency professional from pursuing tort-based damages for on-duty injuries allegedly caused by a defendant’s negligence.
- The matter was returned to federal court for further proceedings on the negligence claims without a firefighter’s-rule bar.

## Legal Principles

- South Carolina common law does not include a firefighter’s rule that categorically precludes negligence recovery by firefighters, police officers, or similar emergency professionals for on-duty injuries caused by a defendant’s negligence.
- Prior South Carolina precedent addressing injuries to firefighters did not establish a broad bar on recovery; it was analyzed through ordinary tort doctrines (including premises-liability classifications) rather than a special immunity rule.
- Policy rationales often used elsewhere to justify the firefighter’s rule—assumption of risk and reliance on workers’ compensation/public payment—did not justify eliminating third-party tort claims as a class in South Carolina.
- Existing tort doctrines (duty, breach, and comparative negligence) provide the tools to evaluate liability without creating a categorical defense specific to emergency professionals.

## Conclusion

South Carolina rejected the firefighter’s rule and held that emergency professionals are not categorically barred from bringing negligence actions against third parties whose alleged negligence causes on-duty injury.


Minnich v. Med-Waste, Inc., 349 S.C. 567, 564 S.E.2d 98 (S.C. 2002)