ILNews

COA: Rescue doctrine applies to injured man

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In an issue that hasn't been decided by Indiana courts, the Court of Appeals ruled that the "rescue doctrine" applies to people who are injured after stopping to help direct traffic after a car accident or other traffic issue.

There is no clear answer in Indiana caselaw or other jurisdictions as to whether someone who helps direct traffic is considered a "rescuer" entitled to a rescue doctrine jury instruction, wrote Judge Michael Barnes in Star Transport, Inc. and Jeffrey Cottingham v. Hervey Byard, No. 69A04-0711-CV-619. Star Transport and Jeffrey Cottingham appealed a judgment finding them jointly 75 percent at fault for injuries Hervey Byard sustained after he was hit by a car driven by Robert Peters. Byard was in the roadway with others who saw Cottingham's tractor-trailer was stuck on the side of the road and came to help to direct traffic while he attempted to move his trailer. Byard sued Cottingham, Star Transport, and Peters.

At trial, the court instructed the jury on the rescue doctrine and refused to instruct the jury of the doctrine of incurred risk.

Star Transport and Cottingham argue the rescue doctrine should only apply to people who actually attempt to rescue a person whose life or physical safety is immediately in danger, not someone who is directing traffic after an accident.

Indiana caselaw has addressed the rescue doctrine in detail twice in the past 50 years, and those cases didn't deal with the issue in the instant case. Other jurisdictions are split in the application of the rescue doctrine. Given that the underlying public policy behind the rescue doctrine is to encourage good Samaritan efforts, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled it's logical to encourage people who come upon a car accident to help avoid additional accidents by directing traffic without fear of being unable to recover any damages if they are injured while doing so, wrote Judge Barnes. As a result, the rescue doctrine properly applies to this issue.

The appellate court found the trial court didn't abuse its discretion by refusing to give an instruction on incurred risk because the jury was adequately advised of the principles underlying the incurred risk doctrine, wrote the judge. Also, Star Transport and Cottingham failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the trial court assigning three peremptory challenges total to Cottingham and Star Transport as opposed to allowing them to have three each, Judge Barnes wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT