FOL Attorney Scores an Important Jury Trial Victory on a First Responder Claim

Jessica MacCarty, a litigation specialist with FOL, won a complex course and scope case before a jury in a difficult East Texas venue, and we are proud to share details of this case with you.

Claimant was employed as a firefighter for a city in East Texas. In December of 2022, he was on duty at the fire station on a 24 hour shift. Claimant and a co-worker began discussing personal firearms. The two men decided to walk out to the fire station parking lot to their personal vehicles to look at each other’s guns. Claimant removed a Glock 17 from his car, showed it to his co-worker, and put it away without incident. Claimant’s co-worker then removed his Colt 45 from his truck, showed it to Claimant, and was in the process of putting it away. The gun accidentally discharged and Claimant was shot in the thigh.

The City had a policy that personal firearms were allowed on City grounds, but the weapons had to remain locked in the owner’s vehicle. Both men underwent an internal affairs investigation by the City’s police department for violating the personal firearm policy, and the allegation brought against Claimant was sustained.

Claimant submitted a workers’ compensation claim. The self-insured denied the claim and asserted Claimant was not within the course and scope of his employment at the time the injury occurred. Claimant hired an attorney and disputed the self-insured’s decision, but an Administrative Law Judge agreed that Claimant was not within course and scope when he was injured. The appeals panel allowed the ALJ’s decision to become final, and Claimant’s attorney filed suit in district court to request judicial review.

Parties proceeded to a jury trial in district court. Claimant’s attorney maintained that since he was on a 24 hour shift and was on City property, his injury was within course and scope. He asserted that Claimant was waiting in readiness to work and contended the decision to walk out to the parking lot to look at personal firearms did not remove him from course and scope. On behalf of the City, attorney MacCarty contended that sustaining a gunshot wound from a co-worker’s personal firearm was not a hazard inherent in firefighting. She also argued that walking out to the parking lot to a co-worker’s personal vehicle to look at his personal gun was not an activity that originated in the business of firefighting and it did not further the affairs of the fire department.

The jury deliberated for five hours and ultimately returned an 11-1 verdict that Claimant was not injured within the course and scope of his employment.

If you’d like additional details, or just to congratulate Ms. MacCarty, you can reach her at JMM@fol.com.