Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdamagesnegligenceliabilitysummary judgmentwillsustained

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealhearing

Related Cases

Ellinwood v. Cohen, 87 A.3d 1054

Facts

On December 23, 2009, patrolman Kris Ellinwood was directing traffic at an accident scene on Roger Williams Avenue in East Providence, Rhode Island. After a vehicle driven by Scott B. Cohen collided with another vehicle, Ellinwood approached Cohen to collect information. While Ellinwood was writing down details, he was struck by a third vehicle, resulting in severe injuries. Ellinwood subsequently filed a negligence claim against Cohen, alleging that Cohen failed to warn him of the danger posed by solar glare.

The pertinent facts in this matter are not contested.

Issue

Did the public-safety officer's rule bar patrolman Ellinwood from recovering damages for his injuries sustained while responding to the accident caused by motorist Cohen?

On appeal, Ellinwood argues that the hearing justice erred in concluding that the public-safety officer's rule barred him from recovering on his negligence claim against Cohen.

Rule

The public-safety officer's rule bars an injured public-safety official from maintaining a negligence action against a tortfeasor whose alleged malfeasance is responsible for bringing the officer to the scene of an emergency where the officer is injured.

According to defendant, the risk of being injured by another vehicle is one that a police officer would typically encounter when responding to the scene of an automobile accident on a public roadway.

Analysis

The court determined that Ellinwood's injuries were foreseeable as a matter of law, given that police officers routinely face the risk of being struck by vehicles while responding to emergencies. The court found that the public-safety officer's rule applied because Ellinwood was injured in the course of his duties and Cohen's actions created the situation that brought Ellinwood to the scene. The court rejected Ellinwood's argument that Cohen had a duty to warn him about the sun glare, stating that such a duty would significantly expand the limited duty owed to public-safety officers.

In making such an argument, plaintiff takes a mistakenly narrow view of the scope of the public-safety officer's rule.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment in favor of Cohen, concluding that the public-safety officer's rule barred Ellinwood's negligence claim.

Accordingly, we find the application of the public-safety officer's rule in this case to be fully supported by both law and reason.

Who won?

Scott B. Cohen prevailed in the case because the court found that the public-safety officer's rule applied, shielding him from liability for Ellinwood's injuries.

The hearing justice concluded that '[t]he risk * * * created by * * * Cohen[ ] was * * * certainly a foreseeable risk that would be encountered by a police officer in these situations.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109, 61 A.3d 893

Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency v. Jackson, 333 Conn. 206, 214 A.3d 841

Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, 303 Mont. 96, 15 P.3d 1205, 2000 MT 334

Lambertson v. Cincinnati Welding Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 257 N.W.2d 679, 100 A.L.R.3d 335

Hand v. Howell, Sarto & Howell, 131 So.3d 599