McCoy v American Suzuki Motor Corp.
Intervening Cause Relevant Facts: PL stopped to assist at an auto accident where a Suzuki has overturned and the driver was seriously injured. HWY patrol had Pl disperse flares along the roadway. Pl thereafter held a flare and directed traffic. After the driver and car were removed, the patrolman left and pl was struck while walking on the shoulder toward his car. Legal Issue(s): Whether the df’s defective product was the proximate cause of the Pl’s injury? Court’s Holding: Jury has to decide. Procedure: trial ct found rescue doctrine applies to product liability suit, but df was not proximate cause of injury; App Ct reversed [injured rescuer does not need to prove proximate cause] Reversed and remanded. Law or Rule(s): Foreseeability of an intervening cause should be decided by a jury not a court. Pl must show that df was the proximate cause of injury. Court Rationale: Pl demonstrated sufficient facts for rescuer status. The rescuer doctrine applies where a product manufacturer causes the danger. The alleged fault of Df, if proved, is not too remote from these injuries that its liability that as a matter of law, the liability should be cut off. Plaintiff’s Argument: The df’s product was defective in that it would roll and cause accidents, it is therefor foreseeable that rescuers would render aid and approaching cars would cause injuries. Defendant’s Argument: It is unforeseeable that a rescuer would be injured by a third vehicle while assisting under the facts above. Rescue doctrine: allow san injured rescuer to sue the party which caused the danger requiring the rescue in the first place.
Kelly v Gwinnell
Public Policy
Relevant Facts: Df spent an hour or two drinking at co-df’s home. After ward, Co-dfs accompanied him outside, chatted, and watched him as he drove off to go home. En route df was involved and caused a head on collision with pl who was seriously injured. Legal Issue(s): Whether a social host who enables an adult guest at his home to become drunk is liable to the victim of an automobile accident caused by the drunken driving of the guest? Court’s Holding: Yes Procedure: Pl sued both df/co-df. Trial ct granted df summary; App ct. affirmed. Reversed. Law or Rule(s): The reasonable and prudent person at the time and place should recognize and foresee an unreasonable risk or likelihood of harm or danger to others. When negligent conduct creates such a risk, setting off foreseeable consequences that lead to injury, the conduct is deemed the proximate cause of the injury. Court Rationale: A reasonable person in df’s position could forsee quite clearly that this continued provision of alcohol was making it more likely that co-df would not be able to operate his car carefully. Thousands of people are killed every year as a result of this activity. The Gov. imposes a criminal sanction for violations of duty to refrain from this activity in accordance with the state’s policy. A host who serves liquor to an adult social guest, knowing both that the guest is intoxicated and will operate a vehicle, is liable for injuries inflicted upon a third party as a result. Plaintiff’s Argument: Df provided his guest liquor in his home, knowing that thereafter the guest would have to drive in order to get home. Defendant’s Argument: Df’s level of intoxication was unknown by df & co-df when he left the house. Co-df had no control over df’s actions, and could not use force to keep df from leaving.