Immunity law: Protection for emergency responders

William C. Nicholson, JD

doi:10.5055/jem.2005.0003

Authors

William C. Nicholson, JD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2005.0003

Keywords:

-

Abstract

-

Author Biography

William C. Nicholson, JD

Adjunct Professor, Widener University of Law; Adjunct Professor, University of Delaware (wcnicholson @widener.edu). Note: This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, consult your own attorney.

References

See generally Lerner at 335.

See, e.g., IND. CODE § 34-13-3-3 (2004), which includes a long list of actions for which government and its employees are immune.

See, e.g., IND. CODE § 34-13-3-3 (2004), which requires that actions must be within the scope of employment if they are to be protected.

Swanson HD: The Delicate Art of Practicing Municipal Law Under Conditions of Hell and High Water, 76 N.D.L. REV. 487, 490 n.10 (2000) lists citations for emergency management statutes in various jurisdictions.

See, e.g., IND. CODE § 10-14-3-15(a) (2004).

57 AM. JUR. 2d Municipal, County, School and State Tort Liability § 57 (2001).

Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988).

Fraiser J: A Review of the Substantive Provisions of the Mississippi Governmental Immunity Act, 68 MISS. L.J. 703, 774-75 (1999).

Commerce and Industrial Insurance Co. v. Grinnell Corp., 280 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2002).

Alleged negligent actions and omissions included: (1) attempting to restore electrical power before an electrical inspection had been conducted, in violation of code and policy; (2) turning off the sprinkler system without posting personnel with two-way radios at the sprinkler valves, in contravention of a specific regulation; (3) opening the large bay doors before the fire was declared out, despite wind velocities of 21 mph; (4) failing to “overhaul” any of the upper level racks even though they had been subjected to intense heat; and (5) departing the scene “under these conditions” within six minutes after declaring the fire out, without leaving adequate personnel and equipment for a fire watch. Id. at 569.

Caillouette v. Hercules, Inc., 827 P.2d 1306, 1311-13 (N.M. App. 1992). The New Mexico Department of Public Safety was found not to have waived immunity on the facts of the case in a wrongful death action arising from a HAZMAT cleanup incident.

See, e.g., IND. CODE § 10-14-3-15(a) (2004).