Roma v. United States

344 F.3d 352 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Roma v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
344 F.3d 352 (2003)

Facts

Mark Roma (plaintiff) was a member of the East Dover Township Volunteer Fire Department. That department was party to a mutual-aid agreement with the United States Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) Fire Department, which provided that each party would provide firefighting assistance to the other as needed. The agreement stated that if such assistance was requested, the chief of the requesting fire department would be in control of the operations. In November 1997, a large fire emerged on the roof of a hangar at NAES that required the assistance of numerous other fire departments, including East Dover, which responded to the fire. Roma’s commander instructed the East Dover officers to follow NAES’s orders. When Roma arrived on the roof, the NAES fire chief instructed him to remove his breathing respirator. Roma questioned the instruction but was told that the respirator was not needed or allowed, and none of the other firefighters wore one. Roma was tasked with spraying water into a wooden subroof. As he did, a steamy mist rose from the subroof, and Roma inhaled it briefly. Shortly thereafter, on his way back to the East Dover fire station, Roma started to cough up blood. He was hospitalized for one or two days. Roma then submitted a claim to the U.S. Navy (defendant) under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the injuries he suffered because of the NAES fire chief’s instruction to remove his respirator. The Navy denied Roma’s claim, finding that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the United States (defendant). Roma filed a complaint against the United States, the Navy, several Navy firefighters, and other federal employees (collectively, the federal parties) (defendants), alleging that they were liable for negligently ordering him to remove his respirator. The federal parties filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted because Roma was a special employee of the NAES fire department and his claims were therefore barred by New Jersey’s workers’-compensation statute.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Barry, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership