§ 8.01-226.Duty of care to law-enforcement officers, firefighters, etc.

The common-law “fireman’s rule” traditionally limited a landowner’s or third party’s liability to firefighters and police officers injured responding to a hazard the defendant’s own conduct created, on the theory that responders assume the risks inherent in their jobs. This section both codifies and narrows that framework for Virginia.

Subsection A sets out the duty of care by scenario. On premises normally open to the public, an owner or occupant owes the listed public-safety officials — firefighters, Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officers, nonfirefighter regional hazmat team members, and law-enforcement officers — a duty to keep the property reasonably safe or warn of known dangers, whether the premises happen to be open to the public at that moment or not. On premises not normally open to the public, the same duty applies once the owner or occupant knows, or has reason to know, the official is on, about to come onto, or imminently likely to come onto that part of the property. While otherwise performing their duties away from those two premises scenarios, the covered officials are owed a duty of ordinary care.

The last paragraph of subsection A is where the section narrows the fireman’s rule rather than merely preserving it: that common-law doctrine is not a defense to claims against third parties whose own negligence did not cause the emergency and who were not occupiers of the property where the emergency arose, claims based on further negligent acts separate from what caused the emergency, claims based on a statutory duty created specifically for the responder’s benefit, or claims against a defendant whose conduct amounts to an intentional tort, gross negligence, or willful or wanton misconduct. Subsection B defines “law-enforcement officers” narrowly, as police officers, sheriffs, and deputy sheriffs, and defines “firefighters” to include emergency medical personnel and special forest wardens.