In Holden v. Chunestudey (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 959, the rule was applied to prevent recovery to a police officer injured while investigating the scene of an accident caused by a drunken driver. The court concluded that the rule was applicable to willful or wanton misconduct as well as to negligence, as follows: " Firemen and policemen fall within fundamental tort principles which prevent a person from recovering for injury due to a knowingly and voluntarily encountered hazard. This rationale applies to willful or wanton misconduct as well as to negligence. "Second, police officers '"'"cannot complain of negligence in the creation of the very occasion for their engagement."' "' . . . Similarly, they may not complain of willful or wanton misconduct for they are employed to deal with behavior made the subject of their duties, whether it arises as a result of someone's careful behavior, negligence, or willful or wanton misconduct. "Third, firemen and policemen receive special benefits and pay because of the dangers they encounter . . . . The added compensation is not limited to injury from negligent conduct. "Last, Walters expressed concern that abolishing the fireman's rule would burden the courts with litigation. That concern would not be much mitigated by limiting the rule to negligence cases both because of the potential number of wanton or willful cases and because we can anticipate litigation plumbing the line between negligence and willful or wanton misconduct. "Although revision of the rule to reflect modern tort concepts has been convincingly recommended . . . we consider ourselves bound by the policy considerations set forth in Walters and decline to undertake a revision of the rule; accordingly, we apply the principles enunciated in Walters to willful or wanton misconduct." ( Holden v. Chunestudey, supra, at p. 962.)