Wagner v. International Ry.

Court of Appeals of New York
133 N.E. 437, 19 A.L.R. 1 (1921)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A party who negligently creates a situation that imperils a victim is liable for injuries suffered by a third party who attempts to rescue that victim. The rescuer's act is a foreseeable consequence of the original negligence, and the chain of causation is not broken by the rescuer's volition, provided the rescue attempt is not wanton.

Facts:

The defendant, International Railway Co., operated an electric railway on a line that included an elevated trestle with sharp turns.
Plaintiff Arthur Wagner and his cousin Herbert boarded a crowded car, and the conductor did not close the platform doors.
As the car rounded a curve at six to eight miles per hour without slackening speed, it lurched violently.
The lurch threw Herbert Wagner from the car near the point where the trestle met a bridge.
After the car stopped, the plaintiff walked back approximately 445 feet along the trestle in the dark to find his cousin.
While searching on the bridge, the plaintiff missed his footing in the darkness and fell, suffering personal injuries.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff, Arthur Wagner, sued the defendant, International Railway Co., in the New York trial court for personal injuries.
The trial judge instructed the jury that the defendant could only be found liable if its conductor had invited the plaintiff to go upon the bridge and had followed with a light.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, 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 a defendant whose negligence endangers a victim owe a duty of care to a third party who is subsequently injured while attempting to rescue that victim, even if the defendant did not expressly invite the rescuer to act?

Opinions:

Majority - Cardozo, J.

Yes. A defendant whose negligence endangers a victim owes a duty of care to a rescuer because the act of rescue is a foreseeable consequence of the initial wrong. The court established the 'danger invites rescue' doctrine, holding that the wrong that imperils the victim is also a wrong to the rescuer. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the rescuer's actions must be 'instinctive' or immediate to be compensable. Continuity of causation is not broken by the exercise of volition or deliberation; it is enough that the rescuer's act, whether impulsive or deliberate, is 'the child of the occasion.' The reasonableness of the plaintiff's decision to search on the bridge and the quality of his actions in the emergency were questions for the jury, and 'errors of judgment' resulting from the 'excitement and confusion of the moment' do not necessarily defeat his claim.

Analysis:

This decision formally establishes the 'danger invites rescue' doctrine as a matter of law, clarifying the scope of proximate cause in negligence cases. It establishes that a rescuer's intervention is not a superseding cause that breaks the chain of liability from the defendant's original negligence. The case broadens the scope of a tortfeasor's duty, making them liable not only for harm to the primary victim but also for foreseeable harm to those who reasonably attempt a rescue. This principle prevents negligent parties from escaping liability by arguing that the rescuer 'assumed the risk' or acted as an unforeseeable intervening force.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Wagner v. International Ry. (1921)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"