Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
A mere showing of negligence will not justify holding the one guilty thereof liable for damages. The evidence must go further, and show that such negligence is the proximate, and not the remote, cause of the resulting injuries. In order for it to be said that an injury proximately results from an act of negligence, the evidence must justify the conclusion that such injury is the natural and probable result thereof. In order to justify such a conclusion, the evidence must justify a finding that the party committing the negligent act ought to foresee the consequences thereof in the light of the attendant circumstances.
Petitioner heirs of decedent, Officer Harold Snellenberger, filed suit against respondent Rosita Hernandez Rodriguez after the officer died while controlling the crowd at the scene of an accident caused by respondent. Petitioners filed suit under the rescue doctrine. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the respondent and the court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner heirs sought review of the decision.
Under the rescue doctrine, could the respondent be held liable for the death of the officer who died while controlling the crowd at the scene of an accident caused by respondent?
The Court affirmed the civil court of appeals affirmation of the trial court's summary judgment in favor of respondent motorist in petitioner heirs of decedent's suit for wrongful death. The Court found that, as a matter of law, the decedent's heart attack was not a foreseeable result of respondent's negligence. The Court also found that the rescue doctrine did not dispense with the requirement of foreseeability in the negligence cause of action.