Is the fireman rule limited to its original context?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Hubbard v. Boelt, 102 Cal.App.3d 255, 162 Cal.Rptr. 349 (Cal. App. 1980):
Finally, the trial court's extension of the fireman rule beyond its original context is inconsistent with the broader developing tort concepts expanding liability (cf., Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897)
Page 355
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have the courts interpreted the instructions in the context of manslaughter instructions in cases where the instruction was limited or limited? (California, United States of America)
What constitutes mutual combat in the context of limiting the right to self-defense? (California, United States of America)
How much discretion, within reason, does the Supreme Court have to exercise in deciding whether to limit the scope of limits on the use of certain constitutional provisions? (California, United States of America)
Does the inequitable conduct of the insurer in the context of the statute of limitations apply? (California, United States of America)
How has the continuing violation doctrine been interpreted in the context of the statute of limitations? (California, United States of America)
Is a limitation on counsel's general voir dire limited preventing the defense from eliciting juror bias? (California, United States of America)
How has the statute of limitations been interpreted in the context of Defendant's request for an extension of time to plead? (California, United States of America)
Does counsel who fail to respond when given the chance to respond to arguments in an adversarial context deprive the trial court of the opportunity to consider their arguments in a similar context? (California, United States of America)
Does counsel who fail to respond when given the chance to respond to arguments in an adversarial context deprive the trial court of the opportunity to consider their arguments in a similar context? (California, United States of America)
For the purposes of limiting evidence in a medical malpractice case, is there any error arising from the lack of a limiting instruction? (California, United States of America)
