Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligenceliabilitytrialsummary judgment

defendanttrialmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Maltman v. Sauer, 84 Wash.2d 975, 530 P.2d 254

Facts

On September 4, 1970, Peter H. Sauer was involved in an automobile accident in Washington, prompting State Trooper W. P. Isom to request a military helicopter for emergency medical assistance. The helicopter crew, consisting of active Army members, was dispatched but tragically crashed en route to the scene, resulting in the deaths of the crew members. The administrator of the estates of the deceased filed a wrongful death action against Sauer, claiming liability under the rescue doctrine.

On September 4, 1970, a car operated by defendant Peter H. Sauer, and registered in the name of defendant Gerd Sauer, his father, was involved in an automobile accident east of North Bend, Washington.

Issue

Whether the rescue doctrine applies to a professional rescuer in a case where the rescuer is killed in a helicopter crash while responding to an emergency caused by the negligence of another party.

This case requires an assessment and determination of the scope of the ‘rescue doctrine.’

Rule

The rescue doctrine provides a source of recovery for individuals injured while reasonably undertaking the rescue of a person who has negligently placed themselves in peril. However, the doctrine does not apply if the injury arises from hazards that are inherent to the rescue operation itself.

In a general sense the ‘rescue doctrine’ is intended to provide a source of recovery to one who is injured while reasonably undertaking the rescue of a person who has negligently placed himself in a position of imminent peril.

Analysis

The court determined that the helicopter crash was a danger unique to the rescue operation and that the professional rescuers assumed certain risks associated with their duties. The court found that the original negligence of the motorist did not create a sufficient causal connection to the helicopter crash, as the dangers faced by the helicopter crew were foreseeable and inherent to their professional role.

We therefore hold as a matter of law that the ‘rescue doctrine’ was not available to the decedents, and that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly granted by the trial court on this basis.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the rescue doctrine was not applicable in this case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Who won?

Peter H. Sauer prevailed in the case because the court found that the rescue doctrine did not apply to the professional rescuers, and there was insufficient causal connection between the motorist's negligence and the helicopter crash.

The defendant does not question the validity of the elements which compose the ‘rescue doctrine.’

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Praesel v. Johnson, 967 S.W.2d 391, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 630

Albertie v. Louis & Alexander Corp., 646 A.2d 1001

Hudson v. Gaitan, 675 S.W.2d 699

Hofstrom v. Share, 295 N.J.Super. 186, 684 A.2d 981

Willis v. Westerfield, 839 N.E.2d 1179