MULTIMON DANIEL TERHELL TRIAL

It must be emphasized, as has been done in many of the cases, that our decision does not establish liability it merely permits plaintiff to place his case before the trier of fact.Neither deal with those situations in which the defendant's negligence occurred after the fire arrived on the scene and materially enhanced the risk of harm or created a new risk of harm.'' ( Id., at p. situations in which there is some hidden danger known to the defendant but not to the fire, nor situations in which the fire is injured as a result of some risk beyond those inevitably involved in firefighting. he fire's rule only bars a firefighter from recovering for injuries resulting from a person's negligence or recklessness in causing the fire or other emergency which is the reason for the fire's presence.' ( Id., at p. (5) The essence of the ruling was a reaffirmation of these basic principles: '.

MULTIMON DANIEL TERHELL TRIAL

The trial court sustained respondents' demurrer with leave to amend, but ultimately sustained a demurrer to a second amended complaint without leave to amend, stating only that the pleading 'shows on its face that the action is barred by the `Fire's Rule'.' Judgment of dismissal was entered, and this timely appeal followed.In keeping with modern usage, we use the term 'firefighter's' rule. The legal doctrine under consideration is referred to in the leading decisions as the 'fireman's' rule.

) (4) 'Thus, for example, although a landowner incurs no liability simply for negligently starting a fire, such a defendant has generally been held liable if, after a fire arrives, the owner negligently fails to advise the fire of some special danger on the property which ultimately causes the officer's injury. 486.) The rule 'has not been applied in California to negligence other than that which started the fire.' ( Bartholomew v. It 'was not intended to bar recovery for independent acts of misconduct which were not the cause of the plaintiff's presence at the.

(3) Use of the rule to bar causes of action has been strictly limited.

979.) Furthermore, application of the rule has been consistently denied where plaintiffs have alleged negligent failure to warn of a hidden known danger, as does appellant herein. Having an unguarded hole in the roof was not the cause of appellant's presence at the scene, and the firefighter's rule has never been applied to negligence which did not cause the fire.

When the principles developed there are applied to the case at bench, we must conclude that the trial court should not have denied appellant his day in court.

(7) The above cases illustrate the present state of the California case law on the firefighter's rule.

Multimon daniel terhell