## Facts

- Peter Trott, employed by a printing company, sought payment from Imar Publications and met Jerry Franzese, who introduced him to Jerry’s brother, Joey Franzese, a Dean Witter employee.
- Joey Franzese proposed a scheme to misdirect Dean Witter funds through fictitious accounts or improper transfers; Trott agreed to participate.
- Trott later claimed he cooperated out of fear and with an intent to gather evidence and expose the fraud.
- Trott contacted the FBI; agents promised protection and asked him to continue cooperating to assist the investigation.
- During the investigation, Franzese caused large sums of Dean Witter money to be placed at risk, including checks totaling $275,000.
- The FBI intervened, recovered the funds, and secured Franzese’s conviction with Trott’s assistance.
- Trott sued Dean Witter seeking compensation for his claimed “services” in preventing loss, plus emotional distress and relocation-related income loss.
- Dean Witter moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Trott could recover in quasi-contract/quantum meruit for benefits allegedly conferred on Dean Witter by helping prevent the theft and assisting law enforcement.
2. Whether the rescue doctrine (“danger invites rescue”) supported tort recovery for Trott’s harms arising from his investigative cooperation.
3. Whether an equitable “two innocents” loss-allocation theory allowed Trott to shift his claimed losses to Dean Witter.

## Decision

- The court granted Dean Witter’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- Trott was not entitled to restitution because he acted as a volunteer, without Dean Witter’s request or consent, and without an emergency excusing consent.
- The rescue doctrine did not apply because Trott’s conduct was prolonged, involved economic risk rather than imminent physical peril, and he knowingly participated in the wrongdoing.
- The “two innocents” theory was inapplicable because Trott was not “innocent” in equity, having knowingly joined the fraudulent scheme.

## Legal Principles

- Restitution/quantum meruit generally is unavailable to a volunteer who confers a benefit without the recipient’s request or consent, absent circumstances (such as a true emergency) making consent impracticable.
- A participant in wrongdoing typically cannot obtain restitution from the victim for benefits incidentally conferred while engaging in, or facilitating, the wrongful conduct.
- The rescue doctrine is narrowly tied to injuries incurred in responding to imminent peril; it does not readily extend to long-running efforts aimed at preventing economic loss, especially where the “rescuer” is complicit in creating or continuing the risk.
- Equitable loss-allocation doctrines between “two innocents” do not apply where the claimant lacks clean hands because the claimant knowingly contributed to the fraud.

## Conclusion

The court held that Trott’s cooperation with authorities, though beneficial to Dean Witter, did not create any contractual, restitutionary, tort, or equitable entitlement to payment because he acted without Dean Witter’s consent, without an emergency, and with prior knowing participation in the fraud; summary judgment for Dean Witter was proper.


Trott v. Dean Witter & Co., 438 F. Supp. 842 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)