McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.
136 Wash.2d 350 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The rescue doctrine, which allows an injured rescuer to sue the party who created the initial peril, applies to product liability actions. However, to recover, the rescuer must still prove that the defendant's conduct or defective product was the proximate cause of the rescuer's own injuries.
Facts:
- A Suzuki Samurai vehicle swerved off an interstate highway and rolled over.
- James McCoy, who was driving behind the Suzuki, stopped his vehicle to render assistance to the seriously injured driver.
- A Washington State Patrol trooper arrived and asked McCoy to place flares on the roadway to warn approaching traffic.
- Concerned the flares were insufficient, McCoy positioned himself a quarter-mile from the accident scene with lit flares in each hand, manually directing traffic for nearly two hours.
- After the accident scene was cleared, McCoy began walking back to his car on the shoulder of the road.
- The state trooper, who was still on the scene, pulled away without comment just before McCoy reached him.
- Moments later, a hit-and-run vehicle struck McCoy from behind while he was still walking on the roadway's shoulder.
Procedural Posture:
- James McCoy filed a product liability suit against American Suzuki Motor Corporation in a state trial court.
- Suzuki moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, concluding that any alleged vehicle defect was not the proximate cause of McCoy's injuries.
- McCoy, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Washington Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, holding that under the rescue doctrine, a rescuer does not need to prove the defendant proximately caused the rescuer's own injuries, only the initial danger.
- Suzuki, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the Washington Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
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 the rescue doctrine, when applied in a product liability action, relieve a rescuer of the requirement to prove that the manufacturer's allegedly defective product was the proximate cause of the rescuer's injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, J.
No, the rescue doctrine does not relieve a rescuer of the requirement to prove that the manufacturer's allegedly defective product was the proximate cause of the rescuer's injuries. The court held that while the rescue doctrine applies to product liability actions, it does not alter the fundamental tort principle that a plaintiff must establish proximate cause. Proximate cause consists of two elements: cause in fact and legal cause. The court found that cause in fact, specifically the foreseeability of the intervening act (the hit-and-run driver), was a question for the jury. A jury could find it foreseeable that a rescuer assisting at a roadside accident might be struck by another vehicle. Regarding legal cause, the court determined as a matter of law that Suzuki's alleged fault in manufacturing a defective vehicle was not so remote from McCoy's injuries as to preclude liability. Therefore, the case was remanded for a jury to determine if Suzuki's actions were the proximate cause of McCoy's injuries.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the rescue doctrine is not a separate cause of action but a principle that extends a duty of care to foreseeable rescuers within existing tort frameworks like negligence and product liability. It affirms that the doctrine does not create an exception to the essential element of proximate causation. The ruling reinforces the traditional division between judge and jury, assigning the factual question of foreseeability of an intervening cause to the jury while reserving the policy-based question of legal cause for the court. This maintains a crucial check on liability, ensuring that a defendant's fault is not so attenuated from the plaintiff's harm as to be unjust, while allowing fact-finders to determine what is reasonably foreseeable in rescue situations.
Unlock the full brief for McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.