# Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co.

> Michigan Supreme Court · November 13, 1987 · 429 Mich. 347

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741909

## Case

- **Full name:** Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Company; Reetz v. Tipit, Incorporated
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 13, 1987
- **Citations:** 429 Mich. 347; 415 N.W.2d 178
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Archer
- **Judges:** Boyle, Cavanagh, Levin, Brickley, Archer, Griffin, Riley
- **Cited by:** 90 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Lego v. Liss.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741909

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the firefighter's rule "insulates a defendant from liability for injuries arising out of the inherent dangers of the profession" of a safety officer and determining that "inherent dangers" include "alleged negligence relating to the condition of the premises"
- recognizing exceptional cases, such as those involving willful misconduct, in which courts have refused to apply firefighter's rule to bar action; similarly adopting flexible approach to address "different fact patterns as they are presented"
- applying the firemen's rule to bar a tort lawsuit arising from injury sustained by a police officer in a public street
- stating that the rule premised liability on the basis of traditional status categories of entrants upon property of another

## Opinion text

Archer, J.
(concurring). I signed the majority opinion and concur because it does not foreclose fire fighters and police officers from bringing a cause of action which includes but is not limited to *380 allegations of wrongdoing or negligence after they are on the scene; alleged negligence rising to the level of wilful, wanton, or intentional misconduct; a situation in which injuries occurred when the buildings were open to the public for business; allegations that the owners misled the plaintiffs regarding the condition of the buildings or the nature of the activities carried on inside; allegations that defendants had a present ability to warn of dangers on the premises; or allegations that defendants intentionally set a fire or that the fire was a product of an illegal activity. See ante, p 371.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741909. Public record. Not legal advice.