NEGLIGENCE-APPLICATION OF THE RESCUE DOCTRINE WHERE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS INVOLVED

Authors

Thomas Hartwell, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

The defendant's servant, while parking the defendant's automobile, negligently failed to secure the brakes. At defendant's request, plaintiff police officer attempted to enter the automobile after it had started to roll, hoping to avert any possible collision. In so doing, he slipped on a stone and was injured. Defendant demurred to plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, as a matter of law, and that the rescue doctrine should not apply where that rescued from peril created by the defendant is not human life or the rescuer's own property. Held, the rescue doctrine was correctly applied even though the thing rescued was not the property of the plaintiff. It was a question of fact for the jury whether the plaintiff's conduct amounted to contributory negligence. Rushton v. Howle (Ga. 1949) 53 S.E. (2d) 768.

Recommended Citation

Thomas Hartwell, NEGLIGENCE-APPLICATION OF THE RESCUE DOCTRINE WHERE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS INVOLVED, 48 Mich. L. Rev. 370 (1950).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol48/iss3/15