In Walters v. Sloan (1977) 20 Cal.3d 199, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the venerable fireman's rule, born almost a century ago, which has earned almost unanimous acceptance. "The fireman's rule provides that negligence in causing a fire furnishes no basis for liability to a professional fireman injured fighting the fire. Firemen, 'whose occupation by its very nature exposes them to particular risks of harm, "'cannot complain of negligence in the creation of the very occasion for their engagement.'"' While denominated the fireman's rule, the rule is applicable to policemen as well. " ( Walters v. Sloan, supra, p. 202.) ". . . The fireman's rule is based on the principle that . . . one who has knowingly and voluntarily confronted a hazard cannot recover for injuries sustained thereby . . . . "A second reason underlying the fireman's rule . . . is a modern one of public policy, adopted by progressive courts and based on fundamental concepts of justice . . . . Firemen '"'cannot complain of negligence in the creation of the very occasion for their engagement.'" '" ( Walters v. Sloan, supra, pp. 204-205.) The Walters court quoted, at page 205, from the opinion of former Chief Justice Weintraub of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Krauth v. Geller (1960) 31 N.J. 270 157 A.2d 129, 130-131, as follows: "The question is ultimately one of public policy, and the answer must be distilled from the relevant factors involved upon an inquiry into what is fair and just . . . .. It is the fireman's business to deal with that very hazard the fire and hence, perhaps by analogy to the contractor engaged as an expert to remedy dangerous situations, he cannot complain of negligence in the creation of the very occasion for his engagement. In terms of duty, it may be said there is none owed the fireman to exercise care so as not to require the special services for which he is trained and paid. Probably most fires are attributable to negligence, and in the final analysis the policy decision is that it would be too burdensome to charge all who carelessly cause or fail to prevent fires with the injuries suffered by the expert retained with public funds to deal with those inevitable, although negligently created, occurrences. Hence, for that risk the fireman should receive appropriate compensation from the public he serves, both in pay which reflects the hazard and in workmen's compensation benefits for the consequences of the inherent risks of the calling." The Walters court also noted that: ". . . abolition of the fireman's rule would burden our courts with litigation among the employer public agency, the retirement system, and the negligence insurer. Whether the employee is ultimately compensated with money derived from taxes or from insurance, the public pays the bill." (20 Cal.3d at p. 206.) The California Supreme Court applied the fireman's rule to police officers. "The fireman's rule provides that negligence in causing a fire furnishes no basis for liability to a professional fireman injured fighting the fire. Firemen, 'whose occupation by its very nature exposes them to particular risks of harm, "'cannot complain of negligence in the creation of the very occasion for their engagement.'" While denominated the fireman's rule, the rule is applicable to policemen as well. " ( Id., at p. 202.)