Does the "firefighter's rule" apply to those who are employed by a private company?

While California courts have not had occasion before to address the issue, other jurisdictions have recognized this public policy rationale only justifies the "firefighter's rule" for public firefighters and not those employed by private firms. As a Michigan appellate court recently held: "Application of the fireman's rule is limited by its very nature to public employees. It is the public that hires, trains, and compensates firefighters [sic ] and police officers to confront danger. Basic to the public policy rationale underlying the fireman's rule is the spreading to the public of the costs of employing safety officers and of compensating them for any injuries they may sustain in the course of their employment. 'Firefighters [sic ] are present upon the premises, not because of any private duty owed the occupant, but because of the duty owed to the public as a whole.' " (Italics added.)"

(Kowalski v. Gratopp (1989) 177 Mich.App. 448, 442 N.W.2d 682, 683.