Does Utah recognize the professional rescuer rule? Fordham v. Oldroyd Explained

In Fordham v. Oldroyd, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah should adopt a professional rescuer rule that bars public safety officers from recovering damages for injuries sustained while responding to incidents caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Background and Facts

Ryan Oldroyd lost control of his vehicle on an icy Interstate 15 off-ramp and crashed. Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Richard Fordham responded to the scene and was retrieving warning flares from his trunk when a third driver struck him, causing serious injuries. Fordham sued Oldroyd, claiming Oldroyd’s negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries. The district court granted summary judgment for Oldroyd based on the professional rescuer doctrine.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Utah should recognize a professional rescuer rule and, if so, whether such a rule barred Fordham’s negligence claim against Oldroyd. The court also addressed concerns that the rule might be incompatible with Utah’s comparative negligence system.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court adopted the professional rescuer rule based on public policy considerations. The court established a two-part test: (1) whether the injury derived from the negligence that occasioned the professional rescuer’s response, and (2) whether the injury was within the scope of risks inherent in the rescuer’s duties. The court distinguished this duty-based approach from the discredited assumption of risk doctrine, explaining that it operates as a limitation on duty rather than an affirmative defense. The court emphasized that professional rescuers are hired, trained, and compensated to confront dangerous situations, and imposing liability on negligent parties would offend sound public policy.

Practice Implications

This decision provides significant protection for defendants in cases involving injuries to public safety officers. Practitioners should analyze whether the officer’s injury arose from the same negligence that required their response and whether the injury fell within the scope of inherent occupational risks. The court limited the rule’s application to public employee professional rescuers, leaving open questions about private rescue personnel. The decision also reinforces Utah’s approach to duty-based defenses that remain viable under comparative negligence principles.