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

damageswillsustained

damagesnegligencesustained

Related Cases

Nowicki v. Pigue, 2013 Ark. 499, 430 S.W.3d 765

Facts

Deborah Nowicki, as executrix of her deceased husband's estate, filed a wrongful death and survival action against Kenny Pigue, a tractor trailer driver. The incident occurred when Pigue ran out of fuel while driving in the left lane of Interstate 55, leading to a collision that resulted in the death of Nowicki's husband, who was a roadside assistance worker. The complaint alleged that Pigue failed to place warning markers and did not take necessary precautions to prevent the accident.

The complaint alleged that on June 20, 2011, Pigue, doing business as K & D Grain Transport, was southbound on Interstate 55 in Arkansas heading toward the Mississippi River bridge in an eighteen-wheel tractor-trailer containing a load of grain weighing 84,820 pounds.

Issue

Whether the fireman's rule bars the wrongful death and survival claims brought by the executrix against the tractor trailer driver.

Nowicki contends that the circuit court erroneously concluded that the Fireman's Rule barred the wrongful-death and survival action.

Rule

The fireman's rule, also known as the professional-rescuers doctrine, generally provides that a professional rescuer may not recover damages for injuries sustained while responding to a situation that is inherently dangerous and for which they are employed to confront.

The Fireman's Rule, which is also known as the professional-rescuers doctrine, generally provides that a professional firefighter may not recover damages from a private party for injuries the fireman sustained during the course of putting out a fire even though the private party's negligence may have caused the fire and injury.

Analysis

The court applied the fireman's rule to the facts of the case, determining that the risk faced by the decedent, as a TDOT HELP program operator, was part of his employment and a risk he was duty-bound to accept. The court found that the decedent's role involved responding to highway incidents, which included the risk of encountering stalled vehicles, and thus, Pigue had no legal duty to protect the decedent from the dangers inherent in his job.

Accordingly, we hold that the doctrine barred Nowicki's claims against Pigue.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, concluding that the fireman's rule barred Nowicki's claims against Pigue and that Pigue's conduct did not rise to the level of willful and wanton misconduct.

We affirm the circuit court's decision.

Who won?

Kenny Pigue prevailed in the case because the court upheld the application of the fireman's rule, determining that the risks faced by the decedent were part of his professional duties.

The court concluded that the decedent was a roadside-assistance worker, a publicly paid position, and that 'position placed him on the shoulder of the [i]nterstate where he might well fall victim to a variety of mishaps,' including the 'very harm that tragically ended his life.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler, 481 N.W.2d 120

Morse v. Studin, 283 A.D.2d 622, 725 N.Y.S.2d 93

Runyon v. District of Columbia, 463 F.2d 1319, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 228

Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51, 65 USLW 2172

Johnson by Adler v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis.2d 615, 545 N.W.2d 495