## Facts

- Salvador Maldonado, a Mexican citizen, attempted to board a Southern Pacific freight train as it passed through Picacho, Arizona at night.
- Maldonado alleged four railroad employees caused a “jerking or bumping” of train cars as he tried to board, causing him to fall under the wheels.
- He suffered catastrophic injuries, including a severed left arm, a broken left leg, and other open, bleeding wounds.
- Maldonado alleged the employees did not assist him after the incident and did not take steps to obtain medical help.
- He asserted multiple tort counts; on appeal were only: (1) interference with a rescuer (Count III), (2) failure to render aid/assistance (Count IV), and (3) failure to call for medical assistance or report the injury (Count V).

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint states a tort claim for failure to render reasonable assistance when the defendant’s employees allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries and left him helpless and exposed to further harm.
2. Whether the complaint adequately pleads a claim for interference with third-party rescue efforts.
3. Whether an alleged failure to call for medical assistance or report an injury states an independent tort claim separate from a failure-to-aid theory.

## Decision

- The court applied the rule that, on a motion to dismiss, pleaded facts are taken as true and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff’s favor to determine whether any legal theory supports relief.
- The court reversed dismissal of Count IV, holding the allegations stated a claim that the railroad owed and breached a duty to render reasonable assistance after causing injuries that left Maldonado helpless and in danger of further harm.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Count III because the complaint did not allege actual interference with any specific rescuer or rescue attempt.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Count V, treating failure to summon medical help or report the injury as not a distinct cause of action apart from the duty recognized under Count IV.

## Legal Principles

- A tort claim requires pleading a duty, breach, causation, and damages; at the pleading stage, dismissal is improper if the facts support relief under any viable legal theory.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 322, a person whose conduct causes bodily harm that leaves another helpless and at risk of further harm has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent additional harm.
- “No duty to rescue” principles yield where the defendant’s prior conduct created the peril and rendered the victim helpless, triggering a duty of reasonable assistance to prevent further harm.
- A claim for interference with rescue requires allegations of affirmative obstruction or prevention of aid, not mere nonfeasance.
- Allegations of failing to summon medical help may fall within, rather than create a separate duty beyond, the reasonable-assistance obligation recognized when the defendant caused the helpless condition.

## Conclusion

The court held that when a defendant’s conduct causes injuries leaving a person helpless and exposed to further harm, the defendant has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent additional harm, and a complaint alleging breach of that duty states a claim; it rejected separate claims for interference with rescue and for failure to call for medical help where the pleadings did not support an independent theory.


Maldonado v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 129 Ariz. 165, 629 P.2d 1001 (Ct. App. 1981)