## Facts

- On a cold November evening around 5:00 p.m., a Suzuki Samurai traveling ahead of James McCoy swerved off Interstate 90 near Spokane and rolled over.
- McCoy, a passing motorist, stopped to help and found the driver seriously injured.
- A Washington State Patrol trooper arrived and asked McCoy to place flares to warn approaching traffic.
- McCoy placed flares, then went farther—about a quarter mile from the crash—with a lit flare in each hand to manually direct traffic into the inside lane.
- By about 6:50 p.m., the injured occupants had been removed and the crash scene cleared, leaving only the trooper and McCoy at the location.
- McCoy began walking back along the shoulder toward his car with a lit flare; when he was within a few car lengths of the trooper, the trooper drove away without comment.
- Moments later, while McCoy was still on the shoulder, a hit-and-run driver struck him from behind, causing injury.
- McCoy and his wife filed a multicount lawsuit, including a products liability claim against American Suzuki Motor Corp. and Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., alleging the Samurai was defective and that the defect caused the rollover that placed McCoy in the position of a rescuer and led to his injury.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Suzuki on the products liability claim, ruling that any defect in the Samurai was not the proximate cause of McCoy’s injuries.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the rescue doctrine allowed recovery without proof of proximate cause.
- Suzuki sought review in the Washington Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the rescue doctrine may be invoked in a products liability action against a manufacturer.
2. Whether a plaintiff proceeding as a rescuer under the rescue doctrine must still prove the defendant’s allegedly tortious conduct was a proximate cause of the rescuer’s injuries.
3. Whether, on this record, Suzuki’s alleged fault could be found to be a proximate cause of McCoy’s injuries, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reinstatement of the products liability claim, but on different grounds, and remanded for trial.
- The court held the rescue doctrine may be invoked in a products liability action.
- The court held the rescue doctrine does not remove the requirement that a rescuer prove proximate cause.
- The court held proximate cause was a disputed factual question on this record and must be decided by the jury, not on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- The rescue doctrine treats rescuers as foreseeable plaintiffs when a defendant’s conduct creates a danger that invites rescue, so long as the rescuer does not act recklessly.
- The doctrine can apply to products liability claims; a manufacturer whose product defect creates peril may owe duties extending to foreseeable rescuers injured while responding to that peril.
- The rescue doctrine does not eliminate causation; a rescuer must prove the defendant’s wrongful conduct (including an alleged product defect) was a proximate cause of both the peril that called for rescue and the rescuer’s resulting injury.
- Proximate cause commonly presents a jury question, particularly where reasonable jurors could differ about foreseeability and causal connection in a chain of events involving multiple actors.
- Summary judgment is improper when the evidence permits competing reasonable inferences on proximate cause.

## Conclusion

McCoy allowed a rescuer’s products liability claim to proceed because Washington recognizes the rescue doctrine in products cases, yet still requires proof that the manufacturer’s alleged defect proximately caused the peril and the rescuer’s injury; because reasonable jurors could disagree on whether the alleged defect in the Samurai set in motion the events leading to McCoy’s hit-and-run injury, the case was remanded for trial.


McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 961 P.2d 952, 136 Wash.2d 350 (1998)