(a)Notwithstanding statutory or decisional law to the contrary, any person is responsible not only for the results of that person’s willful acts causing injury to a peace officer, firefighter, or any emergency medical personnel employed by a public entity, but also for any injury occasioned to that person by the want of ordinary care or skill in the management of the person’s property or person, in any of the following situations:
(1)Where the conduct causing the injury
occurs after the person knows or should have known of the presence of the peace officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel.
(2)Where the conduct causing injury violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation, and the conduct causing injury was itself not the event that precipitated either the response or presence of the peace officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel.
(3)Where the conduct causing the injury was intended to injure the peace officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel.
(4)Where the conduct causing the injury is arson as defined in Section 451 of the Penal Code.
(b)This section does not preclude the reduction of an award of damages because of the comparative fault of the peace officer, firefighter, or
emergency medical personnel in causing the injury.
(c)The employer of a firefighter, peace officer or emergency medical personnel may be subrogated to the rights granted by this section to the extent of the worker’s compensation benefits, and other liabilities of the employer, including all salary, wage, pension, or other emolument paid to the employee or the employee’s dependents.
(d)The liability imposed by this section shall not apply to an employer of a peace officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel.
(e)This section is not intended to change or modify the common law independent cause exception to the firefighter’s rule as set forth in Donohue v. San Francisco Housing Authority (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 658.
Notes of Decisions
Pinter v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 WI 75 (Wis. 2000).
· cites it 4× “1994) and superseded in part by statute in Cal. Civil Code § 1714.9 (West 1999)). [5] ¶ 15.”
Seibert Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court of San Bernardino Cty., 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6936 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The Statutory Exception Inapplicable Civil Code section 1714.9 expresses the legislative view that, even if a firefighter or police officer accepts the general risks of his employment, and that the costs of those risks are properly spread throughout the community, in some…”
Hodges v. Yarian, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2163 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “Civil Code Section 1714.9 Does Not Apply to This Case.”
City of Redlands v. Sorensen, 176 Cal. App. 3d 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “836-837), which was incorporated, as modified and clarified, into Civil Code section 1714.9 enacted at the same time (Stats.”
Minnich v. Med Waste, Inc., 564 S.E.2d 98 (S.C. 2002).
“4 See also Cal. Civil Code § 1714.9 (West 2001) (allowing police officers and firefighters to recover where negligence occurred after negligent party knew of officer’s or firefighter’s presence, or where negligent act or omission violated statute, or was independent of reason…”
Orozco v. Cnty. of Yolo, 814 F. Supp. 885 (E.D. Cal. 1993).
· cites it 2× “California tort law allows emergency personnel (including peace officers) to recover for injuries caused by negligence or intentional acts which occur after the tortfeasor knew or reasonably should have known of the presence of emergency personnel.”
Kelhi v. Fitzpatrick, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4430 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1714.9, subd. (a)(1).) (1b) In this case, there are no allegations of willful acts.”
Moody v. Delta W., Inc., 38 P.3d 1139 (Alaska 2002).
“2d 609, 610 (1977) (abolished by Cal. Civil Code § 1714.9 ); Kaminski v. Town of Fairfield, 216 Conn.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.9(a)(1) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.9(a)(3) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 1714.9(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.