Facts
- Henry Eckert saw a small child on or near railroad tracks as a train rapidly approached in plain view.
- With no time for deliberation, Eckert ran onto the tracks, pushed or threw the child to safety, and was struck and killed by the train.
- The administratrix of Eckert’s estate sued the railroad for wrongful death, alleging negligent operation of the train.
- Evidence conflicted on the train’s speed and the adequacy of warnings, and on whether the child was on a side track or the main track.
- The railroad sought a nonsuit, arguing Eckert’s voluntary entry onto the tracks in front of a visible train was contributory negligence barring recovery.
- The trial court denied a nonsuit; a jury found for the plaintiff. Intermediate appellate review affirmed.
Issues
- Whether a person who knowingly enters the path of an oncoming train to rescue a child is contributorily negligent as a matter of law, barring recovery.
- Whether, on the evidence, contributory negligence was for the jury rather than for the court on a nonsuit motion.
Decision
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held Eckert’s rescue attempt was not negligence as a matter of law.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that Eckert acted with reasonable regard for his own safety and was not rash or reckless.
- The court concluded the trial court properly denied a nonsuit and properly submitted the negligence question to the jury.
- A dissent would have treated Eckert’s voluntary choice to enter known danger as contributory negligence barring recovery.
Legal Principles
- Negligence requires wrongful conduct; an effort to save human life is not wrongful and is not negligent unless the rescuer’s conduct is rash or reckless under the judgment of prudent persons.
- A person who knowingly confronts danger in ordinary affairs or to protect property may be contributorily negligent, but the standard is more forgiving when the exposure is to rescue a human being.
- In emergency conditions requiring instant action, the reasonableness of a rescuer’s judgment is evaluated in light of the lack of time for reflection.
- When reasonable factfinders could differ on whether a rescue attempt was rash or reckless, contributory negligence is a jury question rather than a matter of law on nonsuit.
Conclusion
The court allowed recovery for a rescuer killed while saving a child from an oncoming train, holding that rescue efforts to preserve human life do not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law unless the attempt was so rash or reckless that prudent persons would deem it unreasonable, and that the issue was properly left to the jury.