Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gibbons v. Caraway

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1997No. Docket Nos. 102190, 102191 and 102388, Calendar Nos. 1-2Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiley, J.

Because I do not agree with the decision of the plurality and concurrence that the fireman’s rule does not apply to Officer Martin Gibbons’ action against an allegedly grossly negligent driver in Gibbons v Caraway, I respectfully dissent. However, I concur with the decision of this Court to affirm the Court of Appeals decision in Mariin v Fleur holding that the fireman’s rule did not bar Officer David Mariin’s cause of action.

ANALYSIS

1. FIREMAN’S RULE

As adopted from the common law, the fireman’s rule prevents police officers and firefighters from recovering for injuries sustained during the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Woods v. City of WarrenMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Mariin v. Fleur, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API