Deputy may sue county for injuries suffered while pursuing suspect

(Continued - Page 2)

.The Supreme Court reviewed the history of the rescue doctrine, which allows a volunteer rescuer to recover for injuries from one who negligently has placed himself in a position of imminent peril. The professional-rescue doctrine, however, bars such recovery for hazards that a voluntary rescuer does not assume. Unlike a volunteer rescuer, a professional rescuer may recover only if the hazard is hidden, unknown, and extra hazardous, or otherwise not foreseeable.

The Beaupre Court noted that this case involved a professional rescuer’s injuries that resulted not from a person who was being rescued but from the intervening negligence of a fellow officer. The Washington Court of Appeals had held in several cases that the professional-rescue doctrine does not bar a claim when an independent or intervening act causes the rescuer’s injury. The Supreme Court, however, had never decided this issue previously.

But the County argued that the doctrine still applied to bar Beaupre’s claim because, as courts in California had decided, fellow officers are not intervening parties. California courts apply the doctrine to further the purpose of employer immunity and allow officers to respond to issues of public safety without the worry of injury to fellow officers.
The Beaupre Court noted that California and Washington law differ. Washington statutes specifically permit officers to sue their employers in addition to receiving worker’s compensation, whereas California law does not. Accordingly, the Court held that the professional-rescue doctrine does not bar a rescuer’s claim arising from acts of intervening parties who were not responsible for bringing the rescuer to the scene.