Ouellette v. Carde
1992 WL 158515, 612 A.2d 687, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 169 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law rescue doctrine survives the adoption of a comparative negligence statute; principles of comparative negligence will only apply to limit a rescuer's recovery if the defendant establishes that the rescuer's actions were rash or reckless.
Facts:
- On March 18, 1986, Orin Y. Carde attempted to change the muffler on his car inside his closed garage.
- Carde propped the car up using a combination of stanchion jacks and a bumper jack, tilting the car at a precarious angle.
- While Carde was wiggling the muffler free, the car fell, trapping him underneath and puncturing the gas tank, which spilled approximately ten gallons of gasoline onto the garage floor.
- After freeing himself, Carde called his neighbor, Beverly Ouellette, for help and then passed out.
- Ouellette arrived, entered the garage, and found Carde on the floor amidst the gasoline fumes.
- At Carde's direction, Ouellette pressed the electric garage door opener.
- As the door opened, the gasoline fumes ignited in an explosion, severely burning both Ouellette and Carde.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Ouellette filed a civil action in negligence against Orin Y. Carde in Kent County Superior Court, the trial court.
- During a five-day jury trial, Carde made two motions for a directed verdict; the first was denied and the court reserved judgment on the second.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ouellette for $85,000.
- The trial justice subsequently denied Carde's second motion for a directed verdict.
- Carde then filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial justice denied.
- Carde, as appellant, appealed the judgment to 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 adoption of a comparative negligence statute abrogate the common law rescue doctrine, thereby requiring a rescuer's ordinary negligence to be weighed against the defendant's?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Murray
No. The rescue doctrine survives the adoption of the comparative-negligence statute, and principles of comparative negligence apply only if a defendant establishes that the rescuer’s actions were rash or reckless. The court reasoned that while comparative negligence removes the harshness of the old contributory negligence rule (which completely barred recovery), it does not fully protect the rescue doctrine's underlying public policy of promoting and encouraging rescue. The law places a premium on human life, and individuals who voluntarily attempt to save another should not have their recovery diminished by their own ordinary negligence. Therefore, a rescuer is entitled to full recovery unless their actions rise to the level of being rash or reckless.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the special status of rescuers in tort law, even within a modern comparative fault system. By preserving the rescue doctrine, the court carves out an important exception to the general rule of apportioning damages based on fault, establishing a higher threshold ('rash or reckless') for reducing a rescuer's recovery. This holding reinforces the strong public policy of encouraging individuals to aid others in peril without fear that a minor error in judgment will penalize them financially. The case sets a clear precedent in the jurisdiction that the rescue doctrine is not subsumed by comparative negligence, which will guide lower courts in similar cases involving injuries to rescuers.
Unlock the full brief for Ouellette v. Carde