## Facts

- John D. Morrison attempted to repair a running swamp cooler placed on a furniture dolly with panels removed, exposing moving parts.
- Morrison tripped on an electrical cord, causing the running cooler to fall on him.
- Elda R. Sears, present at the scene, believed Morrison’s poor health and breathing difficulty created a risk of serious harm if the machine remained on him.
- Sears tried to lift the cooler off Morrison and severely cut her hand on a moving part.
- Sears sued Morrison and Morrison’s mother (the property owner) for negligence based on her injury.

## Issues

1. Whether the rescue doctrine permits recovery when a rescuer is injured while attempting to rescue the negligent actor from danger created by the actor’s own negligence.
2. Whether a rescue attempt in these circumstances is a foreseeable consequence of the actor’s negligent conduct such that it does not break causation.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper where a jury could find negligence and foreseeability under the rescue doctrine.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Morrison and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the rescue doctrine can apply when the person rescued is the negligent actor himself.
- The court concluded that a rescue effort is a normal, foreseeable response to peril created by negligent management of one’s person or property, and therefore does not constitute a superseding cause.
- The trial court erred by ruling categorically that the rescue doctrine was inapplicable and removing causation and comparative-fault questions from the trier of fact.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Civil Code § 1714(a), a person has a duty to use ordinary care in managing his property or person and is liable for foreseeable injuries to others caused by a lack of such care.
- The rescue doctrine treats reasonable rescue attempts as foreseeable consequences of the peril created by the defendant’s negligence (“danger invites rescue”).
- A rescuer’s voluntary exposure to risk generally does not excuse the defendant’s negligence; rescue is ordinarily analyzed as part of proximate cause rather than as a superseding cause.
- The rescue doctrine is not limited to rescues of third parties; it may apply to “second-party” rescues where the defendant’s negligence places himself in danger.
- When reasonable minds could differ on negligence, foreseeability of rescue, causation, and comparative fault, those issues are generally for the trier of fact rather than summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that a negligent actor may be liable to an injured rescuer even when the rescuer attempted to save the actor from peril the actor created for himself, because such rescue efforts are a foreseeable consequence of the actor’s negligence; summary judgment was therefore improper.


Sears v. Morrison, 76 Cal. App. 4th 577 (Ct. App. 1999)