Solomon v. Shuell – Case Brief
Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104, 457 N.W.2d 669 (1990).
Facts: A group of officers in plain clothes were in the process of arresting robbery suspects. The decedent believed that the arrestees needed help and came out of his house with a gun pointed toward the ground. One of the officers shot the decedent. The jury instructions required the victims to be in actual danger for the rescue doctrine to apply. The jury found that both parties were negligent. P’s recovery was reduced according to comparative fault law and P appealed. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issue: When does the rescue doctrine apply?
Holding and Rule: The rescue doctrine applies if the rescuer reasonably believes that the victim is in actual danger.
The court held that rescuers as a class are foreseeable, and the tortfeasor owes a duty of reasonable care to rescuers. That duty is independent of any duty owed to the “victim”. That the rescuer voluntarily exposed himself to an increased risk of harm was not a superseding cause of his injuries that would discharge the tortfeasor’s liability.
The court held that if a rescuer’s rescue is reasonable, his recovery is not barred by contributory negligence arising from his voluntary exposure to the harm. The rescuer must exercise reasonable care in order to recover for his injuries. The court held that the jury instruction given by the trial court would not allow the jury to consider such issues unless the “victims” had been in actual danger and was therefore improper.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.