This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Firemens Rule and the related topic of premises liability. For more information on the the fireman’s rule see the pages on Wikipedia.
See Va. Code § 8.01-226, which provides that law enforcement officers and fire fighters, while engaged in their duties, are owed duty of ordinary care also known as firemens rule.
See Va. Code § 8.01-226, which sets forth duty person having control over real property owes to certain public servants who come on property in performance of their duties: with respect to that portion of property generally opened to public, owner, or other person must maintain it in reasonably safe condition or warn of known dangers for benefit of firefighters, police, and sheriffs; same duty is owed with respect to non-public portion of property only if presence of these officers is reasonably foreseeable.
1993 Goodwin v. Hare, 246 Va. 402, 436 S.E.2d 605.
Firemen’s Rule is not applicable to injuries or damages intentionally inflicted upon firemen or police officers.
1988 Philip Morris, Inc. v. Emerson, 235 Va. 380, 368 S.E.2d 268.
The firemen’s rule is based on obligation to accept usual risk of injury. Peril in this case was supertoxic chemical. This danger not foreseeable; therefore rule does not apply.
“I have been a client of Brien Roche for over 25 years and continue to receive exception service. Over the years he has represented in numerous situations including very large commercial transactions, business issues and others. His advice is invaluable as he listens well and is very measured in his responses. He will give you options and the pros and cons of each for you to decide what is your best course of action. I strongly encourage anyone to meet with Brien before they decide who to hire to represent them.” - Clifton Killmon
© 2024 Brien Roche Law
