## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


Eckert v. Long Island R.R. Co., 43 N.Y. 502 (N.Y. 1871)