You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “DANGER INVITES RESCUE” DOCTRINE...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “DANGER INVITES RESCUE” DOCTRINE APPLIED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY HURT HER BACK TRYING TO PREVENT A PATIENT FROM FALLING WHEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE IMPROPERLY USED A HOYER LIFT TO TRANSFER THE PATIENT FROM A WHEEL CHAIR TO A BED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the “danger invites rescue” doctrine applied. One of defendant’s employees tried to use a Hoyer lift to transfer the patient plaintiff was accompanying from a wheel chair to a bed. The lift began to tip over and plaintiff allegedly hurt her back trying to prevent the patient from falling:

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion with respect to the claim for negligence based on the “danger invites rescue” doctrine (rescue doctrine) … , and we therefore modify the order accordingly. That “doctrine imposes liability upon a party who, by his [or her] culpable act has placed another person in a position of imminent peril which invites a third person, the rescuing plaintiff, to come to his [or her] aid’ ” … , on the ground that “[t]he wrong that [*2]imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim . . . [and] also to his [or her] rescuer” … . For the rescue doctrine to apply, “it is sufficient that [the] plaintiff held a reasonable belief of imminent peril of serious injury to another, and it matters not that the peril feared did not materialize” … .

Here, in support of its motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein she testified that she informed defendant’s employee that two people were needed to move the patient onto the bed using the Hoyer lift, but the employee insisted on using the lift alone and did so in a manner that caused the lift to tilt which, in turn, caused the patient to begin to fall off of it. We conclude that the evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion failed to establish that “plaintiff’s rescue efforts were unreasonable as a matter of law or that plaintiff’s actions were so rash under the circumstances as to constitute an intervening and superseding cause’ of [her] alleged injuries” … . Payne v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08024, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

You might also like
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID AND THE SENTENCE WAS UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).
Appeal Waiver Invalid/Court Erroneously Told Defendant His Request for a Hearing on the Persistent Violent Felony Offender Tolling Calculations Violated the Plea Agreement—Matter Remitted for a Hearing
QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND INCLUDED A PARCEL OF LAND NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEED AND SOUGHT A CORRECTED DEED; PURSUANT TO THE MERGER DOCTRINE, THE CONTRACT AND THE DEED MERGED AT THE CLOSING AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IN THE DEED IS DEEMED TO REFLECT THE FINAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES (ABSENT FRAUD OR AMBIGUITY IN THE DEED); PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).
BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS REINSTATED IN HER JOB AND BACKPAY HAD BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE PERIOD OF WRONGFUL SUSPENSION BY THE TIME THE CONTEMPT HEARING WAS HELD, PETITIONER COULD NOT SHOW SHE HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT ORDER; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD IN CONTEMPT (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DRIVER STRUCK A DISABLED CAR WHICH WAS SIDEWAYS IN THE LEFT LANE OF... SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER’S ATTORNEY TO WITHDRAW...