## Facts

- MacLaren owned and operated a pleasure boat on Lake Ontario and invited guests, including Matthews and Horsley, for an outing involving alcohol consumption.
- Matthews accidentally fell overboard into intensely cold water without fault by MacLaren.
- MacLaren attempted to retrieve Matthews by stopping, reversing, and backing the boat toward him rather than using a recommended “bow-on” approach; initial attempts with a pole and life-belt failed.
- As the boat drifted, MacLaren again maneuvered the boat in reverse toward Matthews.
- Horsley jumped into the icy water to rescue Matthews; another passenger also entered the water.
- Matthews died (his body was not recovered) and Horsley died shortly after being pulled back aboard.
- Horsley’s estate and dependants sued MacLaren for wrongful death, alleging negligent operation and negligent rescue attempts that created or aggravated peril and led Horsley to attempt the rescue.
- The trial court found MacLaren liable and awarded damages; MacLaren appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a boat owner-operator owes a duty of care to a voluntary rescuer with respect to the manner in which a rescue is undertaken.
2. Whether MacLaren’s rescue conduct negligently created or aggravated peril in a way that induced Horsley’s rescue attempt, establishing causation and liability.

## Decision

- The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed MacLaren’s appeal and entered judgment for MacLaren.
- The court held MacLaren’s rescue method, though not the best practice, did not fall below the standard of care in the emergency circumstances.
- Because there was no actionable negligence that created a new or aggravated peril, liability to Horsley as a rescuer was not established.
- The court also found insufficient proof that any fault by MacLaren induced Horsley to jump into the water.

## Legal Principles

- At common law, there is generally no affirmative duty to rescue a stranger in peril.
- A defendant who negligently creates a danger may owe a duty of care to reasonably acting rescuers injured while responding to that danger.
- Rescuer recovery depends on proof that the defendant’s negligence created or worsened the peril and that the rescuer’s response was causally connected to that negligence.
- In emergencies, a suboptimal rescue choice may be treated as a non-negligent error of judgment when it remains within the range of reasonable conduct under the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court rejected wrongful-death liability to a rescuer where the initial peril was not caused by the defendant and the defendant’s rescue efforts, though imperfect, were reasonable in an emergency and did not negligently create or aggravate peril that induced the fatal rescue attempt.


Horsley v. MacLaren, 11 D.L.R. 3d 277 (Ont. C.A. 1970)