Legal Opinion

Pottebaum v. Hinds

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 11, 1984No. 83-551PublishedCited by 83 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHULTZ, Justice.

This appeal raises an issue of first impression. In particular, we must decide whether we will join the general trend and adopt the fireman’s rule which limits liability for certain negligent acts or wrongful conduct causing on-the-job injuries to firefighters or policemen. If we do, we also must decide whether the rule would apply to a dram shop action brought pursuant to Iowa Code section 123.92. While the term “fireman’s rule” is used generically, this common law doctrine, in actuality, is a product of various legal theories resulting in several different rules. We…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Krauth v. Israel Geller and Buckingham Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  2. Walters v. SloanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Lipson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Berko v. FredaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
  5. Rosenau Ex Rel. Rosenau v. City of EsthervilleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1972

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

3Cited by83 opinions

  1. Santangelo v. State of NYNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Moody v. Manny's Auto RepairNevada Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Flowers v. Rock Creek Terrace Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987

78 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