## Facts

- Three appeals were considered together: (1) a police officer’s slip-and-fall at a bus terminal during a strike, (2) firefighters’ injuries from a warehouse collapse during a fire, and (3) police officers’ falls on subway stairs while responding to an emergency call.
- In the strike-related incident, a police officer assigned to crowd control moved toward a picketer and slipped on a snow-covered metal plate embedded in the pavement; he and his spouse sued the property owner and related entities for negligent failure to protect against an alleged hidden hazard.
- In the fire-related incident, firefighters responding to a warehouse fire were harmed when the roof and an exterior wall collapsed, killing one firefighter and paralyzing another; plaintiffs alleged unsafe construction/maintenance and code violations contributing to the collapse.
- In the subway incident, two police officers rushing down station stairs to assist an officer in distress fell and were injured; they alleged negligent maintenance and failure to warn of a hazardous stairway condition.
- Defendants in each case sought dismissal/summary judgment under New York’s firefighter rule, arguing police officers and firefighters cannot recover in common-law negligence for line-of-duty injuries arising from risks inherent in their work.
- Trial courts denied dismissal based on a “separate and apart” rationale; the intermediate appellate court reversed and applied the firefighter rule to bar the common-law negligence claims.
- The firefighters in the warehouse-collapse case also pleaded statutory claims under General Municipal Law (G.M.L.) § 205-a.

## Issues

1. Under the firefighter rule, when are police officers and firefighters barred from recovering in common-law negligence for line-of-duty injuries: when the duty merely placed them at the scene, or when performance of duty increased the risk of injury?
2. Whether firefighters’ G.M.L. § 205-a claims based on alleged code and safety violations were viable, and what connection is required between a violation and the injury.

## Decision

- The court held that the firefighter rule bars common-law negligence recovery when the performance of police or firefighting duties increased the risk of the injury, rather than merely furnishing the occasion for it.
- Applying that standard, the court barred the common-law negligence claims in all three matters.
- The court reinstated the firefighters’ G.M.L. § 205-a claims in the warehouse-collapse matter, concluding the alleged violations were of the type covered by the statute and sufficiently connected to the injuries.
- The court indicated that § 205-a liability is limited to defendants who controlled the premises at the time of the injury.

## Legal Principles

- The firefighter rule precludes common-law negligence recovery for line-of-duty injuries resulting from risks associated with the particular dangers inherent in police and firefighting work.
- The operative inquiry is whether performance of duty increased the risk of injury; conceptual “separateness” between the negligent condition and the emergency that prompted the response is not controlling.
- Risks encountered while undertaking typical police or firefighting tasks in exigent conditions (e.g., crowd control in winter conditions, operating in a burning structure, urgent response through public infrastructure) fall within the firefighter rule’s bar when duty performance increases exposure to the hazard.
- G.M.L. § 205-a provides an independent statutory cause of action for firefighters injured as a result of statutory or regulatory violations related to safety, requiring a sufficient causal connection between the violation and the injury.
- Statutory remedies like § 205-a are not eliminated by the firefighter rule, but may be asserted only against parties with contemporaneous control of the premises.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that common-law negligence claims by police officers and firefighters are barred when their duty performance increases the risk of the injury, and it rejected a broad “separate and apart” approach; however, it preserved a statutory avenue for firefighters by reinstating properly connected G.M.L. § 205-a claims against defendants who controlled the premises.


Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Comm'n, 85 N.Y.2d 423, 649 N.E.2d 1167, 626 N.Y.S.2d 23 (N.Y. 1995)