## Facts

- John Davis lost control of his vehicle on Interstate 70 in Missouri, and his vehicle and trailer overturned and came to rest in the median.
- Katherine McCarter, who had been driving behind Davis, pulled over on the left shoulder to check on the situation.
- Other motorists stopped on the right shoulder, including Daniel Rozum, with Tara Rozum as a passenger; the Rozums had not seen Davis’s rollover occur.
- The Rozums did not plan to cross the highway to reach Davis; they stopped to determine whether 911 had been called and would have left once they confirmed it.
- Tara exited the Rozums’ vehicle and walked along the shoulder, as far from the traffic lane as she could, to ask another driver whether emergency services had been contacted.
- During this time, a driver near a tractor-trailer instructed McCarter to move her car to the right shoulder.
- McCarter got back into her car and began to drive across the westbound lanes toward the right shoulder.
- As McCarter’s car crossed, it was struck by another vehicle; the impact caused McCarter’s car to strike Tara, injuring her.
- The Rozums sued McCarter for Tara’s injuries; McCarter settled those claims.
- McCarter then sued Davis in federal court seeking contribution for the settlement amounts, alleging Davis’s initial negligence remained a legal cause of Tara’s injuries under a rescue-doctrine theory.
- Davis moved for summary judgment, arguing the rescue doctrine did not apply and that his conduct was not a proximate cause of Tara’s injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri’s rescue doctrine (or related foreseeability principles) could extend liability from Davis’s initial rollover to injuries suffered by Tara Rozum during later events on the highway shoulder.
2. Whether, as a matter of law, Davis’s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of Tara’s injuries, or whether the later collision involving McCarter constituted a superseding intervening cause that cut off Davis’s liability and defeated McCarter’s contribution claim.

## Decision

- The court granted Davis’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held the rescue doctrine did not make Davis legally responsible for Tara’s injuries on these facts.
- The court concluded Davis’s conduct was not a proximate cause of Tara’s injuries because the later actions and collision that struck Tara were too remote and operated as an intervening cause.
- Because McCarter could not show Davis was liable to the Rozums for Tara’s injuries, McCarter could not obtain contribution from Davis for the amounts she paid in settlement.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Under Missouri law, the rescue doctrine can allow recovery when a defendant’s negligence creates peril and a rescuer is injured in a reasonable rescue attempt; the doctrine still requires a legally sufficient causal connection between the original negligence and the injury.
- Proximate cause limits liability to harms that bear a legally sufficient relationship to the defendant’s conduct; later independent acts may break the causal chain.
- An intervening act may relieve an earlier actor of liability when the later event is not a natural and probable consequence of the original negligence and becomes the immediate cause of the injury.
- A contribution claim requires that the defendant be liable to the injured party for the same injury; if the defendant is not a tortfeasor as to that injury, contribution is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for Davis because McCarter’s contribution claim depended on showing Davis’s initial rollover remained a legal cause of Tara Rozum’s later injuries, but the court found the rescue doctrine did not apply on these facts and that the later collision and resulting impact on Tara severed proximate cause, leaving Davis without liability for Tara’s injuries and therefore not subject to contribution.


McCarter v. Davis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102399 (2014)