Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-226 (2026)

Duty of care to law-enforcement officers, firefighters, etc

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. An owner or occupant of real property containing premises normally open to the public shall, with respect to such premises, owe to firefighters, Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officers, nonfirefighter regional hazardous materials emergency response team members, and law-enforcement officers who in the performance of their duties come upon that portion of the premises normally open to the public the duty to maintain the same in a reasonably safe condition or to warn of dangers thereon of which he knows or has reason to know, whether or not such premises are at the time open to the public.

An owner or occupant of real property containing premises not normally open to the public shall, with respect to such premises, owe the same duty to firefighters, Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officers, nonfirefighter regional hazardous materials emergency response team members, and law-enforcement officers who he knows or has reason to know are upon, about to come upon, or imminently likely to come upon that portion of the premises not normally open to the public.

While otherwise engaged in the performance of his duties, a law-enforcement officer, Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officer, nonfirefighter regional hazardous materials emergency response team member, or firefighter shall be owed a duty of ordinary care.

The common-law doctrine known as the fireman's rule, a doctrine that limits a defendant's liability for otherwise culpable conduct resulting in property damage and injuries to the public officials named in this section, shall not be a defense to claims (i) against third parties whose negligent acts did not give rise to the emergency to which such public official is responding and who were not occupiers of the premises where such emergency arose and injuries occurred; (ii) arising out of further acts of negligence separate and apart from the negligent acts that gave rise to the emergency to which such public official is responding; (iii) based upon a violation of a statutory duty created for the express benefit of such public official; or (iv) against parties whose conduct qualifies as an intentional tort, gross negligence, or willful or wanton misconduct.

B. For purposes of this section, "law-enforcement officers" means only police officers, sheriffs, and deputy sheriffs and "firefighters" includes (i) emergency medical personnel and (ii) special forest wardens designated pursuant to § 10.1-1135.

1987, c. 442; 1992, c. 731; 1996, cc. 646, 660; 2000, c. 962; 2017, c. 315.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1992–2018 · leading case: Benefiel v. Walker, 422 S.E.2d 773 (Va. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Benefiel v. Walker, 422 S.E.2d 773 (Va. 1992). · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] Neither party relies upon the provisions of Code § 8.01-226. Code § 8.01-226, as it was in force at the time of these incidents, affected only the duties of landowners or occupiers of premises to "law-enforcement officers and firefighters.”

Goodwin v. Hare, 436 S.E.2d 605 (Va. 1993). · cites it 4× “I cannot conceive of a hazard more naturally or commonly inherent in the occupation of a police officer than that of a suspect resisting arrest and of that resistance being accompanied by force.”

Minnich v. Med Waste, Inc., 564 S.E.2d 98 (S.C. 2002). “Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-226 (Michie 2001). 4 See also Cal.”

Greene v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del., 74 F. Supp. 2d 616 (E.D. Va. 1999). · cites it 28× “Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-226. Thus, the duty owed by a property owner would be that owed to a licensee for the condition of the premises.”

Hudgins v. Holman, 49 Va. Cir. 279 (Chesapeake Cir. Ct. 1999). · cites it 22× “The plaintiffs allege three counts of tortious conduct: (1) negligence by defendant Holman by failing to use ordinary and reasonable care in the use of his aerial lift and to otherwise conduct his business in a reasonable, carefiil, and prudent manner with due regard for the…”

Irby v. Doe, 46 Va. Cir. 323 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff argues that the 1992 amendment to Va. Code § 8.01-226 effectively abrogated the fireman’s rale.”

Brian Colbert v. Norcold, Inc. (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-226 (West 2015 & Supp.”

Dixon v. South Boston Corp., 68 Va. Cir. 458 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “Va. Code § 8.01-226 (2005) (emphasis added).”

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.