Many perceive more than mere dollars-and-cents considerations underpinning the fundamental justice of the 'fireman's rule.' There is at work here a public policy component that strongly opposes the notion that an act of ordinary negligence should expose the actor to liability for injuries sustained in the course of a public servant's performance of necessary, albeit hazardous, public duties. In the absence of a legislative expression of contrary policy, a citizen should not have to run the risk of a civil judgment against him for negligent acts that occasion the presence of a firefighter at the scene of a carelessly-set fire or of a police officer at a disturbance or unlawful incident resulting from negligent conduct. [Id. at 88-89, 459 A.2d 663].
In a more recent case, Mahoney v. Carus Chemical Co., 102 N.J. 564, 510 A.2d 4 (1986), the court held that 'the immunity of the fireman's rule does not extend to one whose willful and wanton misconduct created the hazard that caused the injury to the fireman or policeman.' Id. at 579, 510 A.2d 4. Although the court narrowed the scope of the rule, it reaffirmed its belief in the underlying policy considerations ...