Legal Opinion

Rennenger v. Pacesetter Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 22, 1997No. 95-1162PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ANDREASEN, Justice.

In 1984 we adopted the fireman’s rule [hereinafter referred to as the firefighter’s rule] and held that a dram shop operator was protected by the rule in a suit brought by two police officers seeking damages for injuries they sustained when an intoxicated patron assaulted them while they were attempting to quell a disturbance at a tavern. Pottebawm v. Hinds, 347 N.W.2d 642, 643 (Iowa 1984). We recognized that courts have generally extended the firefighter’s rule to police officers and have held the rule is applicable to all causes of action. Id. at 644, 647. Since our…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lipson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Hass v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Pottebaum v. HindsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
  5. Gail v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1987

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pinter v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Paul v. Luigi's, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1997
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. HillCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  4. McKernan v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2000
  5. Cornwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API