Kowalski v. Gratopp
| Decision Date | 27 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 108576 |
| Parties | Leslie J. KOWALSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, and The Second Injury Fund, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. John GRATOPP, Defendant-Appellee, and Wendy Sarette, Defendant. 177 Mich.App. 448, 442 N.W.2d 682 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[177 MICHAPP 449] Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, P.C. by Robert L. Blamer and Gail P. Massad, Livonia, for plaintiff-appellant.
Harvey, Kruse, Westen & Milan, P.C. by Thomas R. Bowen and Mary R. Benedetto, Bloomfield Hills, for defendant-appellee.
Before BEASLEY, P.J., and WEAVER and CAVANAGH, JJ.
Plaintiff, Leslie J. Kowalski, appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, E. John Gratopp, and dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff worked as an advanced paramedic for Community Emergency Medical Services, which held a contract with the City of Pontiac for ambulance service. On February 15, 1985, plaintiff responded to a call from the Pontiac Fire Department to pick up a nonemergency patient who was suffering abdominal pain. After arriving at the scene, plaintiff slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice on the walkway of premises owned by defendant Gratopp. Plaintiff tore his right bicep tendon and claims permanent restriction of movement preventing his return to employment as a Community EMS paramedic. On July 8, 1986, plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence in maintaining the premises. Defendant Gratopp moved for summary disposition under the fireman's rule articulated in Kreski[177 MICHAPP 450] v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co. 1 The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff appeals.
In Kreski, the Supreme Court said:
Thus, as a matter of public policy, we hold that fire fighters or police officers may not recover for injuries occasioned by the negligence which caused their presence on the premises in their professional capacities. This includes injuries arising from the normal, inherent, and foreseeable risks of the chosen profession. 2
Application of the fireman's rule is limited by its very nature to public employees. It is the public that hires, trains, and compensates fire fighters and police officers to confront danger. Basic to the public policy rationale underlying the fireman's rule is the spreading to the public of the costs of employing safety officers and of compensating them for any injuries they may sustain in the course of their employment. "Fire fighters are present upon the premises, not because of any private duty owed the occupant, but because of the duty owed to the public as a whole." 3
Here, the pleadings indicate that plaintiff was employed by a private company, Community EMS, when he was injured. Community EMS was under contract with the City of Pontiac to provide limited service to the community, but the scope of that service is unclear. According to plaintiff's affidavit, the call on which he was injured was not an emergency, and Community EMS billed the patient directly, as opposed to billing the city. It appears that plaintiff was not acting as a public employee, and the pleadings at least raise a question[177 MICHAPP 451] of fact as to plaintiff's employment status. Therefore, we believe the trial court erred in applying the fireman's rule to defeat plaintiff's action. If plaintiff was injured while merely furthering the private operation of a medical taxicab, there is no public policy reason to apply the fireman's rule to this case.
More fundamentally, even if plaintiff were viewed as a public employee for purposes of the fireman's rule, the rule would not preclude his cause of action. While the Kreski Court acknowledged that the precise parameters of Michigan's fireman's rule would require delineation in later cases, 4 the Court did not contemplate an extension of the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc.
...whether to accept skittish animal for grooming does not assume risk of dog bite].) Thus we agree with the court in Kowalski v. Gratopp (1989) 177 Mich.App. 448, 442 N.W.2d 682, in which the court refused to apply the firefighter's rule to the employee of a private ambulance service, stating......
-
Bath Excavating & Const. Co. v. Wills, 91SC522
...but to perform some other public function that may incidentally involve risk. Berko, 459 A.2d at 666; see also Kowalski v. Gratopp, 177 Mich.App. 448, 442 N.W.2d 682 (1989) (refusing to extend fireman's rule to paramedic); Krause, 787 S.W.2d at 708 (refusing to extend fireman's rule to ambu......
-
Sepega v. Delaura
...medical assistance in those jurisdictions. See Sallee v. GTE South, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Ky. 1992) ; Kowalski v. Gratopp, 177 Mich.App. 448, 450–52, 442 N.W.2d 682 (1989) ; Krause v. U.S. Truck Co., 787 S.W.2d 708, 713 (Mo. 1990).1 Given its applicability to other emergency profession......
-
Pinter v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...danger, emergency medical personnel are not specially trained or employed to deal with dangerous situations. See Kowalski v. Gratopp, 442 N.W.2d 682, 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)(paramedic) ("The paramedic's occupation is one which may peripherally involve hazards, but they are not employed, t......