Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries

Supreme Court of California · Torts

Tortsassumption of riskfirefighter's ruledutysummary judgmentduty of carefirefighter's ruleprimary assumption of risk

Facts

Plaintiffs Neighbarger and Magana were Powerine Oil Company safety supervisors whose duties included responding to refinery emergencies and participating in Powerine's fire brigade. While defendant Irwin Industries was performing maintenance work at the refinery, its employees allegedly violated industry safety standards and released a flammable petroleum product from a valve. Hearing and seeing the release, plaintiffs moved toward the valve to try to close it, and the product ignited, burning both men. Plaintiffs sued Irwin, a third party and not their employer, for negligence.

Issue

Does a negligent third party owe a duty of care to privately employed safety workers with firefighting-related duties, or are such claims barred by the firefighter's rule or the doctrine of assumption of risk?

Rule

Under Civil Code section 1714 and the general duty rule, persons must use ordinary care to avoid injuring others, including workers in hazardous occupations. After Knight, assumption of risk bars recovery only when, because of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to it, public policy supports a conclusion that defendant owed plaintiff no duty of care. The firefighter's rule is such a limited no-duty rule grounded in the public nature of firefighting and the relationship between the public and public firefighters; it does not extend to privately employed safety employees suing negligent third parties who neither secured nor paid for their services.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a chemical plant in Baton Rouge, Lena Ortiz works for Gulf Crest Polymers as an in-house emergency response coordinator trained to handle leaks and small fires. While Beacon Valve Services, an outside maintenance contractor, is repairing piping, its crew carelessly loosens a pressurized fitting and a flash fire erupts, burning Lena as she tries to shut down nearby equipment.

If Lena sues Beacon Valve Services for negligence, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority holds that the starting point is Civil Code section 1714's ordinary duty of care, and any exception must rest on statute or clear public policy. The firefighter's rule is a limited no-duty rule justified by the public nature of firefighting and the relationship between the public and public firefighters. Those justifications do not apply when a privately employed safety worker sues a negligent third party that did not secure or pay for the worker's services. The court also rejected the idea that hazardous workers assume all foreseeable occupational risks.