## Facts

- Susan Day and her friend Freddie Farris went to a Waffle House restaurant.
- Farris entered and ordered food while Day briefly went across the street to make a phone call.
- While eating, Farris discovered broken glass in his food and began spitting out food, glass, and blood.
- Day returned, saw Farris in distress, and observed a bloody napkin containing food and broken glass.
- Day asked restaurant employees to summon an ambulance.
- Employees stated they could not call for help because the only outgoing phone was behind locked doors, and they demanded payment for Farris’s meal; payment was made.
- Day placed Farris in her car to take him to the nearest hospital.
- At an intersection adjacent to the restaurant, Day entered on a green light and another vehicle collided with her, injuring Day and Farris.
- Day claimed Waffle House’s negligence toward Farris led to her rescue attempt and her resulting injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether a restaurant’s alleged negligence in serving adulterated food to a customer can, under the rescue doctrine, support liability for injuries suffered by a third party injured while reasonably attempting to obtain medical aid for that customer.
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed on negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the summary judgment for Waffle House and remanded.
- The court held there were material fact disputes concerning Waffle House’s negligence toward Farris and whether Day’s injuries fell within the rescue doctrine’s scope.
- The court concluded causation and foreseeability were for the fact-finder on this record, not for resolution as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A food supplier may be liable in negligence for injuries caused by tainted or adulterated food sold to a consumer.
- Under the rescue doctrine, a defendant whose negligence endangers a victim may owe a duty to a foreseeable rescuer injured while making a reasonable rescue attempt; “danger invites rescue.”
- For rescue-doctrine liability, the precise manner of the rescuer’s injury need not be foreseen if rescue efforts and attendant risks are reasonably foreseeable results of the original danger.
- Summary judgment is improper where the evidentiary materials permit competing reasonable inferences on negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that disputed facts about Waffle House’s alleged negligence and the foreseeability and causal connection of Day’s rescue-related injuries required trial, so summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded.


Day v. Waffle House, Inc., 743 P.2d 1111 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987)