b3a94f04-7ae1-4a04-868a-26ecfb916e8c.doc
Page 332
McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., Supreme court of WA, 1998 Does the rescue doctrine apply to Product liability actions? Issue Reasoning Rule
To achieve rescuer statuts, must show: ∆ was negligent to the person rescued and the negligence caused peril or appearance of peril 2. Peril or appearance of peril was imminent 3. A reasonable person would have concluded such peril or appearance of peril existed 4. Rescuer acted with reasonable care in effectuating the rescue Rescuer like any other ∏ must still show proximate cause 1.
Facts
A Suzuki Samurai swerved off the roadway and rolled. ∏ stopped to help and was later hit by a car as he was walking on the roadway shoulder.
Foreseeability of the intervening cause to be sufficiently close that it should be decided by the Jury.
∏ suit against ∆ that the Suzuki was defective.
Held Procedure P argues D argues
Remanded for trial. It is a jury question whether ∆’s action proximately caused the harm to rescuer. Court of appeals erred – rescuer has to show proximate cause. Trial court granted summary judgment: found that doctrine applied to product liability but no proximate cause Court of Appeals: Reversed – doctrine applies – but rescuer does not have to show proximate cause. Rescue doctrine does not apply to product liability. Even it did, ∏ can not show proximate cause for the injuries. Totally unforeseeable that a rescuer such as ∏ would be injured by a third vehicle under these particular facts.
b3a94f04-7ae1-4a04-868a-26ecfb916e8c.doc
Page 332
HN2
To achieve rescuer status one must demonstrate: (1) the defendant was negligent to the person rescued and such negligence caused the peril or appearance of peril to the person rescued; (2) the peril or appearance of peril was imminent; (3) a reasonably prudent person would have concluded such peril or appearance of peril existed; and (4) the rescuer acted with reasonable care in effectuating the rescue. More Like This Headnote A rescuer must show the defendant proximately caused his injuries is in keeping with general principles of liability. More Like This Headnote
Torts > Negligence
HN3
Torts > Causation > Proximate Cause
HN4
Proximate cause contains two prongs: (1) cause in fact and (2) legal cause. More Like This Headnote
Torts > Causation > Cause in Fact
HN5
Cause in fact asks whether there was a sufficiently close, actual, causal connection between defendant's conduct and the actual damage suffered by plaintiff. More Like This Headnote
Torts > Causation > Cause in Fact
HN6
For the original defendant's wrongdoing to be the cause in fact of plaintiff's injuries, the original negligence of the defendant, which placed him in his present imperiled predicament, must be an active factor in the course of events which ultimately culminates in injury to the plaintiff. More Like This Headnote
Torts > Causation > Cause in Fact
HN7
The defendant's actions are the cause in fact of plaintiff's injuries if the defendant's wrongdoing produced the injuries complained of and any intervening cause was reasonably foreseeable. If, on the other hand, the intervening cause was unforeseeable then it will break the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury and negate a finding of cause in fact. More Like This
Headnote