## Facts

- Barbara Boddie requested electrical repair service at her home; Astley H. Scott, an electrician, responded.
- Before Scott arrived, Boddie poured cooking oil into a frying pan, lit the stove, and left the kitchen to answer the door.
- Boddie took Scott to the basement to inspect an outlet and forgot the oil heating on the stove.
- Approximately ten minutes later, Boddie called for help and Scott ran to the kitchen, where flames from the pan were rising toward the ceiling and cabinets were already blackened.
- Scott asked Boddie how to put out the fire; although a fire extinguisher was under the sink, Boddie did not respond and remained immobile.
- Scott grabbed the pan of burning grease and carried it toward the door; hot oil splashed onto him, and additional oil spilled when he threw the pan outside.
- Scott prevented further damage to the home but suffered severe burns.

## Issues

1. Whether assumption of risk bars recovery when a plaintiff is injured while reasonably attempting to rescue or protect property from a peril created by the defendant’s negligence.
2. Whether the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s rescue response was a question for the jury on the record presented.

## Decision

- The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Scott.
- The court held assumption of risk is unavailable where a plaintiff is injured while reasonably attempting to rescue property from a peril caused by the defendant’s negligence.
- The court concluded that whether Scott acted reasonably in responding to the emergency was properly left to the jury, and the verdict would not be disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant’s negligence creates an emergency, it is foreseeable that others will attempt to mitigate the danger; tort law generally treats such rescue efforts as within the scope of risk created by the defendant.
- Assumption of risk does not operate as a complete bar against a plaintiff injured during a rescue of property caused by the defendant’s negligence, provided the plaintiff’s conduct is reasonable under the circumstances.
- The rescue doctrine’s protection is not automatic; the rescuer’s reasonableness is typically a fact question for the jury rather than a matter resolved as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court extended rescue-doctrine limits on assumption of risk to reasonable property-rescue efforts, affirming a jury verdict for an electrician burned while trying to stop a grease fire negligently caused and inadequately addressed by the homeowner.


Boddie v. Scott, 722 A.2d 407 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999)