Armstrong v. Mailand

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that landowners owe firefighters a duty of care, but that firefighters primarily assume all risks reasonably apparent to them that are a part of firefighting
• stating that in Spring-rose, the supreme court held that “primary assumption of the risk remains as an absolute bar to the plaintiffs recovery”
• stating that for primary assumption of the risk to apply as a complete bar to the plaintiffs recovery, it must be shown that the plaintiff manifested consent, express or implied, to reheve the defendant of his duty of care
• fireman's rule bars recovery in actions based on negligence per se, strict products liability, or strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity
• landowner owed fireman, killed by explosion of gas storage tank, duty of reasonable care, except where, as here, fireman primarily assumed a risk apparent as part of firefighting
• \[A]ny improper operation of the release valve merely increased the risk of a BLEVE; it did not remove the occurrence of a BLEVE from the risks reasonably anticipated by the ... firemen.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).