D. Rescuers
No general duty to rescue
At common law, a person is generally not liable merely for failing to rescue, because the law usually distinguishes omissions from positive acts. Thus, a bystander may have no duty to act unless some special relationship, assumption of responsibility, or other recognised ground of duty exists.
Duty of the wrongdoer to the rescuer
When a person negligently creates a danger to himself or others that invites a rescue attempt, the law imposes a duty of care on him toward the rescuer. For example, if A walks onto thin ice on a frozen lake despite warning signs, and B tries to pull him out when he falls through, A may owe B a duty of care because his own negligence created the danger that led to the rescue.
Even if no one is in actual danger, that duty may still arise so long as it is reasonably foreseeable that a rescuer might reasonably believe that danger exists.
The duty owed to the rescuer is independent of any duty owed to the person being rescued. A defendant might be liable to a rescuer even if the defendant owed no legal duty to the original victim (e.g., if the victim was a trespasser). For example, a railway worker carelessly drives a trolley along the tracks and hits a person who is on the line without permission. Because that person is a trespasser, he may not be able to sue. However, if a stationmaster sees the danger, runs to help, and is injured in the rescue, the railway worker (or his employer) may still owe a duty to the stationmaster.
This duty extends to those attempting to save property from a danger created by the defendant’s negligence.
A rescuer can only recover damages if the rescue attempt was reasonably foreseeable. Interventions by professional rescuers (police, doctors, firefighters) or members of the public in grave emergencies are considered readily foreseeable. For example, a factory owner negligently causes a chemical leak. Firefighters arrive to contain it, and one is injured in the process. The owner may be liable because it is entirely foreseeable that professional rescuers would respond.
Duty of the rescuer to the person rescued
Although there is no general duty to begin a rescue, once a person does intervene, the ordinary law of negligence may apply. The rescuer must act with the care of a reasonable person in the circumstances.
While there is no duty to make things better (nonfeasance), once a rescuer takes positive action (misfeasance), he owes a duty of care not to cause fresh damage or leave the victim in a worse condition. For example, if a fire brigade intervenes but negligently worsens the fire by turning off sprinklers, it may be held liable.
Professional rescuers like firefighters and police generally do not owe a common law duty to the public to respond to an emergency unless they actively intervene and worsen the situation.
Standard of care in emergencies
A rescuer’s conduct is judged objectively by the standard of a reasonable person placed in the same emergency. The courts recognize that decisions made in the “heat of the moment” should not be judged with excessive strictness or hindsight.
Whether the rescuer is a professional or an ordinary bystander does not weigh heavily; what matters is whether the rescue was the “child of the occasion”.
Because emergency action is frequently instinctive and pressured, courts are generally slow to find that a rescuer acted negligently.
Chain of rescues
If the defendant’s negligence causes danger to A, B may try to save A; if B is then imperilled, C may try to save B. If C is injured in rescuing B, C may be able to sue the defendant in negligence. Law may treat all of this as part of one continuous chain flowing from the defendant’s original negligence.
