|
|
|
|
EXCEPTION TO PROFESSIONAL RESCUER’S DOCTRINE RECOGNIZEDMelton v. Crane Rental Co., No. 98 CV 1469 (D.C. Dec. 16, 1999) The Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine bars those engaged in rescue work as part of their employment from recovering damages for injuries sustained on the job as the result of negligence of the person rescued. The D.C. Court of Appeals has recently held that the doctrine did not apply in a case where the negligent party was a third party unrelated to the rescued victim and the negligent act was independent from the emergency to which the rescuer was responding. Essentially, what happened in this case was that the plaintiff, an EMT in an ambulance which was transporting a pregnant woman to a hospital, was injured when a truck crane failed to yield the right of way at an intersection and struck the ambulance. The test for determining whether the doctrine applies to bar recovery by a professional rescuer is whether the hazard ultimately responsible for causing the injuries is inherently within the ambit of those dangers which are unique to and generally associated with the particular rescue activity. The Court reasoned that every other jurisdiction which has considered the issue has recognized an exception for an independent tort. Further, the Court reasoned that while an EMT may have exposed himself to the risk of vehicular traffic, he has not consented to relieve a third party of any future duty to act with reasonable care. The crane truck owed the EMT a duty of reasonable care "and any question as to the propriety of allowing recovery to an EMT in an emergency vehicle, authorized to travel against the normal dictates of traffic laws, is a question of contributory negligence and not assumption of risk." Id., slip. op. at 10. Nothing, prevents the crane truck from defending on the basis of contributory negligence. |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
