Opinion ID: 2375256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rescue doctrine inapplicable?

Text: Appellant argues the insufficiency of the evidence to warrant invocation of the rescue doctrine (under which it is held not negligence to knowingly and voluntarily place one's self in a position where he is liable to receive a serious injury when the exposure is for the purpose of saving human life). Appellant contends that plaintiff cannot rely upon the rescue doctrine for several reasons: 1. Because plaintiff's negligence contributed in producing the harm by which the third person came into peril. This was a question for the jury, resolved against appellant. 2. Because appellant's negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. This likewise was for the jury's determination. 3. Because there was no showing that anyone was in imminent peril, or exactly who the mythical person was he was attempting to save. Before the fire occurred Curtis Williams, a colored employee of appellant, was fueling up tractors with Diesel fuel, working about 25 feet from the building, at a place where he could see plaintiff (and therefore presumably could have been seen by plaintiff). When Williams heard the explosion he ran to the building to see what was going on, and started to enter the middle lane of the north end of the building. Before the fire Barsanti was working on the lights of trailer 4513. He had just started to kneel down to replace a bulb on the right-hand back side of the trailer when the fire broke out. He started to run toward the office. The flame was so intense that he couldn't get by, so he ran out of the building. Plaintiff testified that he missed a man that worked around there; that he had seen an employee of Pic-Walsh pass through there; that he thought the man was underneath the truck; that he thought he was checking tires; that a little colored fellow who checked tires was around there; that he was at the back end of the truck the last time plaintiff saw him, and that plaintiff supposed that he got trapped in the fire. Plaintiff said I just had him in mind. I didn't want him to burn up. This was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that there was someone in peril; that the situation was such as to clearly convince plaintiff that human life or limb was in peril, and that plaintiff acted from humanity's sake to rescue such person from peril, within the requirements of Eversole v. Wabash R. Co., 249 Mo. 523, 155 S.W. 419, and that plaintiff's conduct was that of an ordinarily prudent man under the circumstances, and not reckless and rash so as to preclude reliance on the rescue doctrine.