Clinkscales v. Nelson Securities, Inc.
2005 WL 1366440, 697 N.W.2d 836, 2005 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 80 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the rescue doctrine, a defendant whose negligence creates a dangerous situation is liable for injuries sustained by a rescuer. The rescuer's 'normal' or 'natural' efforts to avert the harm are not considered a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation, and the determination of whether the rescuer's actions were a normal response is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- James Clinkscales, an active-duty marine, was a patron at The Gallery Lounge.
- The Gallery was grilling hamburgers on an outdoor patio using a custom-made grill fueled by two propane tanks.
- While an employee, Joe Moser, was grilling particularly greasy burgers, a fire flared up, followed by a 'pop and a hiss' as a ball of fire erupted underneath the grill and engulfed the propane tanks.
- A patron extinguished the main flame with a fire extinguisher, but Moser noted gas was still escaping from the tanks and the valves were too hot to touch.
- Clinkscales, who had military training in fire suppression, recognized the ongoing gas leak as a 'very dangerous' situation with other patrons still in the vicinity.
- Without being asked, Clinkscales took off his shirt, wrapped it around his hand, and attempted to turn off the valves on the propane tanks.
- While Clinkscales was turning the valves, the fire flared up again, causing him to suffer severe burns on his face, neck, chest, arms, and legs.
Procedural Posture:
- James Clinkscales sued The Gallery Lounge and its owners for negligence in Iowa district court (trial court).
- The Gallery filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Clinkscales's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of The Gallery.
- Clinkscales, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, affirming the district court, held that Clinkscales's injury was a 'self-inflicted wound.'
- Clinkscales sought, and was granted, further review by the Supreme Court of Iowa.
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 voluntary act of confronting a known and obvious danger created by a defendant's negligence constitute a superseding cause of his injuries that breaks the chain of proximate causation, thereby barring his negligence claim as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A rescuer's act of confronting a known danger does not automatically constitute a superseding cause that bars recovery as a matter of law. The court held that the rescue doctrine prevents a rescuer's intervention from breaking the chain of causation unless the rescue attempt was 'abnormal' or 'extraordinary.' The key inquiry is whether the rescuer's conduct was a 'normal' or 'natural' response to the peril created by the defendant's negligence. This determination is a question of fact for the jury, not one to be decided on summary judgment. The court rejected the argument that the 'open and obvious danger' rule bars an invitee-rescuer's claim, as the very nature of a rescue involves confronting a known danger. Furthermore, the court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could apply, as a gas leak and subsequent explosion are not events that ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Streit, J.
No. The justice concurred with the majority that Clinkscales's rescue attempt does not bar his recovery as a matter of law and that he deserves a trial on his negligence claim. However, the justice dissented from the majority's decision to allow the claim of res ipsa loquitur. The dissent argued that res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable for two reasons: 1) The Gallery did not have 'exclusive control' of the grill at the time of the alleged negligence, as other parties (manufacturers, propane fillers) could have been responsible for the defect, and 2) the underlying event—a grease fire—is an occurrence that can happen even in the absence of negligence, unlike classic res ipsa loquitur cases where the accident itself implies negligence.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the 'danger invites rescue' doctrine, shielding rescuers from having their claims dismissed on summary judgment. The court clarifies that a rescuer's actions are not a superseding cause unless they are abnormal or extraordinary, a standard that is explicitly difficult to meet. By framing the 'normalcy' of a rescue as a quintessential jury question, the case makes it harder for defendants to argue that a rescuer assumed the risk or was the sole proximate cause of their own injuries. This strengthens the legal protection for individuals who intervene in emergencies, ensuring that the original wrongdoer remains accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their negligence, including injuries to rescuers.
Unlock the full brief for Clinkscales v. Nelson Securities, Inc.