|
3.6-15 Rescue Doctrine
Revised to January 1, 2008
The defendant in this case
has asserted the defense of comparative negligence. This defense
asserts that the plaintiff's injuries were caused, either in part or
in whole, by the plaintiff's own negligent conduct. When viewing
the plaintiff's conduct, you may consider a doctrine of law known as
the rescue doctrine. The rescue doctrine states that it is not
negligence to expose oneself to danger in a reasonable effort to
save another person from harm.
To determine whether the
conduct of the plaintiff falls within the rescue doctrine, you must
consider the evidence and decide whether the plaintiff made a
reasonable effort to save <insert the name of the appropriate
person>. In determining whether the actions of the plaintiff
were reasonable, you should judge the conduct in light of the
existing circumstances. The question is not whether the conduct was
that of a prudent person under ordinary circumstances but whether
the conduct was that of an ordinarily prudent person in an
emergency. In an emergency, the conduct of a person attempting a
rescue is not to be judged by what one would do when there was time
for cool deliberation but by what a reasonable person would do in
that emergency.
If you find that the
plaintiff was reasonably faced with an emergency in which there was
fear for the safety of another, and that the plaintiff made a
reasonable effort to save <insert the name of the appropriate
person> from harm, then the plaintiff would not be negligent.
If you find that the
plaintiff's efforts to rescue were not reasonable under the
circumstances, then the plaintiff was negligent and the principles
of comparative negligence, as I will explain them to you, will
apply.
Authority
Notes
|
