Austin v. City of Buffalo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The Fireman’s Rule does not bar recovery when the negligence that caused the injury is separate and apart from the *1076negligent acts which occasioned the firefighters’ presence (Furch v General Elec. Co., 142 AD2d 8, 12; Dawes v Ballard, 133 AD2d 662, 664). Thus, in Furch v General Elec. Co. (supra), the defendant was not protected by the Fireman’s Rule where it installed materials which, during the fire, released toxic substances that injured responding firemen. The Fireman’s Rule was inapplicable to that case because the installation of the toxic substance was "sufficiently separate and apart…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kenavan v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Armstrong v. MailandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Mahoney v. Carus Chemical Co., Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
- Wright v. GardensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Dawes v. BallardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Waggoner v. Troutman Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
- Maisch v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,294 Willis A. White, Linda White v. David Edmond, Irene Edmond, VnacCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1992
- Austin v. City of BuffaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Martell v. City of UticaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.