A recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of the New York State court system and one of the most respected Courts in the world, provides further guidance concerning a firefighters rights to seek compensation for injuries or death caused in the line of duty.

Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp. et. al., 100 N.Y.2d 72 (2003). A full text of the decision can be obtained by clicking here.

A firefighter (Giuffrida) initiated a personal injury action pursuant to General Municipal Law §205-a against the owners of property where he had been injured while fighting a fire. General Municipal Law §205-a "creates a cause of action for firefighters who suffer line-of-duty injuries directly or indirectly caused by a defendants violation of relevant statutes and regulations."

The fire occurred at a doughnut shop. The fire was alleged to have begun in the doughnut shop kitchen. Giuffrida alleged the owner violated regulations to keep his building in safe condition and to maintain a proper fire protection system.

While fighting the fire, Giuffridas low air supply alarm went off. He informed his officer who directed him and his fellow firefighters out of the building. Giuffrida operated the water hose as his fellow firefighters escaped. Before he was able to escape, Giuffridas air supply stopped. He was overcome by smoke and suffered severe burns and smoke inhalation.

The Giuffrida decision takes us through the history of The Firefighters Rule - a limited right to recover in negligence for injuries in the line-of-duty. Traditionally, a firefighter could not recover in negligence. The reasoning was based in common law and basically stated the firefighter takes the property as he or she finds it. Further, the firefighter was engaged in an inherently dangerous job and had assumed the risk of injury.

The Giuffrida decision describes in detail the history of General Municipal Law §205-a first enacted by the N.Y. State Legislature in 1935 and recent amendments to the law. Further, the enactment of General Obligations Law §11-106 has just about abolished the Firefighters rule by permitting recovery in negligence for injuries sustained in the line of duty except for actions against municipal employers and fellow employees (a standard exception for work-related injuries).

The Giuffrida decision focused on that portion of General Municipal Law §205-a concerning injuries caused indirectly by violations of statutes or regulations.

The Court of Appeals states "the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from inclusion of the word "indirectly" in the statute is that the Legislature intended to broaden a firefighters cause of action under section 205-a to encompass situations where the alleged violation was not the "direct" cause of the injuries."

Plaintiff Giuffrida raised "a factual question as to whether defendants violations resulted in a malfunctioning fire control system that directly or indirectly caused plaintiffs injuries by failing to prevent the fire or by exacerbating it."

Finally, words from the Court of Appeals that should make every firefighter proud, "Defendants argument that the cause of the plaintiffs injuries was his lack of oxygen misses the mark: plaintiffs air supply ran out because he remained inside the burning building operating the last water hose so that his fellow firefighters could escape. The depletion of plaintiffs air supply was not a superseding cause of his injuries. It was the result of an act of courage that was part of plaintiffs efforts in battling the blaze."

Additional sources of interest on this topic:

Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Committee, et. al., 85 N.Y.2d 423 (1995)  Click here.

Cooper v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 584 (1993)  Click here.

N.Y. General Municipal Law Article 10 "Firemen and Policemen" (including §205-a) Click here.

N.Y. General Obligations Law Article 11 including §11-106. "Compensation for injury or death to police officers and firefighters or their estates." Click here.