Recently in Interesting Cases Solved by BWH Category


Robert L. Weinberg of Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz, LLC  successfully won a settlement for policy limits in a wrongful death claim involving multiple fatalities. The firm represented the mother of a decedent driver who had pulled onto the shoulder of I-95 in Howard County at the suggestion of his passenger who believed the driver "looked tired". After pulling onto the shoulder to switch drivers, a Ford Explorer left the travel portion of the roadway, striking and killing the two occupants of the vehicle, who at the time were standing next to their vehicle. An argument was made that the driver was negligent for stopping in a no stopping area, however, Mr Weinberg successfully argued at mediation that the case law stood in contradiction to this argument. Clearly, the proximate cause of the accident was the defendant's bad driving and not the passive conduct of the plaintiff in standing next to his vehicle.    

Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz handles a large number of complex personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, workers's compensation and other general personal injury claims.  For more information about our practice or if you wish to discuss your case with Mr. Weinberg or one of the other personal injury attorneys in the practice, please contact us.

In Wagner v. International Railway, 232 N.Y. 176, 133 N.E. 437 (1921), the learned jurist Benjamin Cardozo first espoused that "danger invites rescue." Many state appellate courts have since followed this principle of law and hold that a rescuer who suffers injuries during an attempt to rescue a person who is placed in a position of peril as the result of the negligence of another may recover from that person all damages sustained during the rescue.

In addition, it is almost universally accepted in state and federal courts throughout the United States that one who witnesses a person in imminent or immediate peril though the negligence of another cannot be charged with contributory negligence as a matter of law, in risking his or her own life or serious injury, in attempt to effect a rescue, provided the rescue was not undertaken carelessly or recklessly. One exception to this general rule of recovery is that professional first responders such a firefighters and police officers may not recover for injuries sustained in the course of undertaking a rescue.

The person in need of rescue may also be held responsible in the event he or she negligently causes the need for their own rescue.

The attorneys at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz, LLC have successfully used the rescue doctrine to obtain settlements in a variety of cases. In one such case, a motorist negligently used his car jack to prop his vehicle up to perform certain repairs on the side of the highway. The jack collapsed, and the weight of the vehicle crushed the motorist. A bystander witnessed the event, and attempted, albeit futilely, to lift the vehicle off the motorist. As a result, the rescuer sustained multiple disc herniations and recovered a confidential settlement for injuries sustained during the rescue attempt. The motorist survived.

Many experienced lawyers are unaware of the "rescue doctrine" which is a long standing yet little used legal concept. For more information on this doctrine, the reader may wish to consider the following additional legal authorities:

 

White v. State, No. 1960, Md. Ct. Spec. Appeal (2008);

Flowers v. Rock Creek Terrace, 308 Md. 432 (1987);

Comment, Restitutionary Recovery for Rescuers of Human Life, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 85 (1986)

Terrence Kiley, Modern Tort Liability: Recovery in the '90s (1990).

 

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Interesting Cases Solved by BWH category.

Auto Accident Law & Procedure is the previous category.

Newsworthy Events is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.