Altamuro v. Milner Hotel, Inc.
1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14301, 540 F. Supp. 870 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the rescue doctrine, a defendant whose negligence creates a peril is liable for injuries sustained by a third person who makes a reasonable effort to rescue those imperiled. A rescuer's conduct will not be considered negligent unless it was rash, imprudent, or unreasonable, with errors in judgment being weighed in light of the excitement and confusion of the moment.
Facts:
- A maintenance man for the Milner Hotel, Inc., Edwin Jennings, inspected a television in Room 706 after a guest reported it was broken.
- While testing the television, Jennings observed it emit a 'burning' odor and make a 'popping' sound, indicating a defect.
- Jennings left the television plugged into an electrical outlet with its power switch in the 'on' position and reported to the desk clerk, William T. Wilson, that it had a 'short'.
- Before Jennings could return to turn it off, the defective television started a fire on the seventh floor of the hotel.
- Joseph S. Altamuro, who operated a newsstand in front of the hotel, saw the smoke and entered the building to alert and rescue guests.
- After assisting a police officer in evacuating some residents, fire department personnel ordered all civilians, including Altamuro, to leave the building.
- Altamuro was escorted outside by a police officer.
- Sometime after being escorted out, Altamuro re-entered the burning hotel and was later found deceased in Room 710 from smoke inhalation.
Procedural Posture:
- Doris E. Altamuro, as administratrix of the estate of Joseph S. Altamuro, filed a diversity suit against Milner Hotel, Inc. in federal district court.
- Milner Hotel, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against the City of Philadelphia, seeking contribution and/or indemnity.
- The case was tried before the court without a jury (bench trial).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a rescuer's conduct in re-entering a burning building, after being ordered to evacuate by firefighters, constitute negligence that bars recovery from the party whose negligence originally caused the fire?
Opinions:
Majority - McGlynn, J.
No. A rescuer's conduct does not bar recovery unless it was rash, imprudent, or unreasonable under the circumstances. The court first established the Hotel's initial negligence through the doctrine of respondeat superior; its employee, Jennings, knew the television was defective but left it plugged in and turned on, which was a substantial factor in causing the fire that imperiled the guests. The court then analyzed Altamuro's conduct under the rescue doctrine, which protects rescuers from being charged with negligence for errors in judgment made in the excitement and confusion of an emergency. The hotel argued that Altamuro's re-entry after being ordered out by firemen was unreasonable. However, the court found that having been successful in prior rescue efforts within the hotel, it was not unreasonable for Altamuro to believe he could complete another mission without unduly imperiling himself, even though it meant disobeying an order. Therefore, his actions were not deemed rash or imprudent, and his estate could recover from the negligent hotel.
Analysis:
This case provides a strong affirmation of the rescue doctrine, demonstrating the significant legal protection afforded to rescuers. The court's analysis shows that the standard for a rescuer's contributory or comparative negligence is not ordinary negligence but a higher threshold of 'rashness' or 'imprudence.' The decision establishes that even an act of disobedience against an official order, such as re-entering a burning building, will not automatically bar recovery if it is not deemed unreasonable within the chaotic context of the emergency. This precedent reinforces that the initial tortfeasor bears the foreseeable risk that others will attempt a rescue, and it places a high burden on that tortfeasor to prove a rescuer's actions were so reckless as to break the chain of causation.
Unlock the full brief for Altamuro v. Milner Hotel, Inc.