Case Name: Ronald T. BOLE and Susan M. Bole, Petitioners v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2011-05-17
Citations: 20 A.3d 1185
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ronald T. BOLE and Susan M. Bole, Petitioners v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 20
Pages: 1185–1185

Head Matter:
Ronald T. BOLE and Susan M. Bole, Petitioners v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 17, 2011.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 17th day of May, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as phrased by Petitioner, is:
Whether the Superior Court erred in holding that [Petitioner Ronald] Bole, who was engaged in a rescue, could not recover under the rescue doctrine because the collapse of his bridge, which caused him severe injuries, was the result of a superseding cause when it collapsed as a result of flood waters in a blinding nocturnal rain storm when that same storm caused the original accident and created the rescue situation to which Bole was responding, when:
A. Bole, who like other members of the McKean Volunteer Fire Department resided throughout McKean Township, had been summoned by the original tort-feasor by use of his cell phone for emergency assistance for his critically injured passenger; and
B. But for the use of modern telecommunications by which Bole and the other members of his volunteer fire department were summoned, [the original tortfeasor's] Finazzo's passenger would likely not have survived.