F: McCoy stopped to help somebody who crashed in a Suzuki. He got hit by another car. He sues the manufacturer of the car that crashed. The allegation is that a defect in the Suzuki Samurai caused it to crash which invited him to stop and rescue the driver which caused him to get hit by a car on the highway. A substantial amount of time passed between the crash and McCoy’s hit by another car.
TC found rescue doctrine applies to product liability suit, but D was not proximate cause of injury; AC reversed that rescuer does not need to prove proximate cause
I: Whether the defective product was the proximate cause of the Ps injury?
R: 1. The fault of D is not remote a result of the following car crash to P
2. If the initial tortfeasor’s fault is too remote a result of subsequent accident, he is not liable.
3. rescue doctrine also applies to a product liability action, rescuer must show the D proximately caused his injuries in the same manner as other cases.
C: reversed and remanded
Co: Rescue Doctrine
1. Definition: allows an injured rescuer to sue the party which casued the danger requiring the rescue in the first place.
i) it informs a tort feasor it is foreseeable a rescuer will come to the aid of the person imperiled by the tort feasor’s actions, and,
the tort feasor owes the rescuer a duty similar to the duty he owes the person he imperils
ii) rescue doctrine negates the presumption that the rescuer assumed the risk of injury when he knowingly undertook the dangerous rescue, so long as he does not act rashly or recklessly
i) D was negligent to the person rescued and such negligence caused the peril to the person rescued
ii) the peril was imminent
iii) a reasonably prudent person would have concluded such peril existed; and
iv) rescuer acted with reasonable care in effectuating the rescue