The firefighter's rule is essentially a rule of premises liability. The distinction upon which it rests, namely, whether the plaintiff is an invitee or licensee, is itself a distinction that exists in our law only with regard to claims based upon premises liability, and the differing duties of care that emanate from those distinctions are cast in terms of a landowner's duty to persons on his or her land. The rule is 'directly applicable [to] an issue of landowner liability . . . .' Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563, 580 n.12, 717 A.2d 215 (1998).
Courts have declined to extend the rule to a case in which the plaintiff firefighters sought to recover damages from the defendant alarm company for injuries and death sustained as a result of a collision caused by the negligent maintenance and failure of brakes on their fire engine while responding to a false alarm transmitted by the defendant. Id., 585-86. This essential link to a landowner's liability is the most compelling argument for the rule, because of the reasonable expectations of landowners, and because of the ensuing hardship that would be visited upon a landowner in the absence ...