## Facts

- International Railway Company operated an electric railway line that crossed an elevated trestle and bridge with sharp curves and unguarded ties.
- Arthur Wagner and his cousin, Herbert Wagner, rode on a crowded car platform; the platform doors were not closed.
- As the car rounded a curve at speed, it lurched and Herbert was thrown from the car near the trestle-to-bridge area.
- After the car stopped, Arthur left the car and, in darkness, walked along the trestle toward the bridge to find and aid Herbert.
- Arthur located only Herbert’s hat on the bridge, lost his footing, and fell, suffering injuries.
- Others located Herbert’s body beneath the bridge; Arthur’s body then fell near them.
- Arthur sued, alleging the railway’s negligence toward Herbert caused Arthur’s injuries incurred during the rescue attempt.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant whose negligence endangers one person owes a duty, and may be liable, to a rescuer injured while attempting a rescue.
2. Whether the rescuer’s voluntary decision to undertake the rescue (including travel to the scene) is a superseding cause that breaks proximate causation.
3. Whether the rescuer’s conduct was so reckless that recovery is barred as a matter of law, or instead presents a jury question.
4. Whether the trial court erred by limiting liability to proof that the conductor invited the rescue and followed with a light.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the judgment for the defendant and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that if the defendant’s negligence placed Herbert in peril, injury to a rescuer acting reasonably is within the range of foreseeable risk.
- The court rejected the view that the rescue attempt became legally remote merely because Arthur acted deliberately or walked a substantial distance.
- The court held that negligence toward Herbert and the reasonableness of Arthur’s rescue attempt were for the jury under proper instructions.
- The court ruled the trial court’s charge improperly made liability depend on an invitation by the conductor and accompaniment with a lantern.

## Legal Principles

- A negligent actor who creates a peril may be liable to a rescuer injured in a reasonable effort to save the imperiled person.
- Rescue efforts are a foreseeable response to danger created by negligence; “danger invites rescue.”
- The causal sequence is not ordinarily broken because the rescuer exercises choice or takes time to reach the scene.
- A rescuer’s recovery is barred only when the rescue attempt is wanton or reckless; close questions of reasonableness are generally for the jury.
- Jury instructions may not narrow proximate-cause analysis to a special factual theory (such as invitation or assistance) when liability may rest on the initial negligent creation of peril.

## Conclusion

The court held that alleged negligence endangering Herbert could, if proven, support liability for Arthur’s injuries sustained during a reasonable rescue attempt, and it ordered a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed to condition liability on the conductor’s invitation and assistance rather than on the rescue doctrine and proximate cause.


Wagner v. Int’l Ry. Co., 232 N.Y. 176, 133 N.E. 437 (N.Y. 1921)