McCoy v.American Suzuki Motor Corp.
Supreme Court Washington,1998
136 Wash.2d 350,961 P.2d 952
SANDERS,J.… At 5:00 p.m.on a cold November evening James McCoy drove eastbound on Interstate 90 outside Spokane as the car which preceded him,a Suzuki Samurai,swerved off the roadway and rolled.McCoy stopped to render assistance,finding the driver seriously injured.Shortly thereafter a Washington State Patrol trooper arrived on the scene and asked McCoy to place flares on the roadway to warn approaching vehicles.McCoy did so,but concerned the flares were insufficient,continued further and positioned himself a quarter-mile from the accident scene with a lit flare in each hand,manually directing traffic to the inside lane.
By 6:50 p.m.,almost two hours after the accident,the injured driver and passenger of the Suzuki were removed and the scene was cleared,leaving only the trooper and McCoy on the roadway.McCoy walked back on the shoulder of the roadway to his car with a lit flare in his roadside hand.When McCoy was within three or four car-lengths of the trooper,the trooper pulled away without comment.Moments later McCoy was struck from behind while still walking on the roadway’s shoulder by a hit-and-run vehicle.(https://www.daowen.com)
McCoy and his wife filed a multicount complaint against the driver of the Suzuki for negligent driving;the passenger of the Suzuki for negligently grabbing the steering wheel when the car was fishtailing,further causing it to lose control;the State for the negligence of the trooper;and American Suzuki Motor Corporation and its parent corporation,Suzuki Motor Company,Ltd.,for its allegedly defective Samurai which allegedly caused the wreck in the first place.We presently consider only McCoy’s claim against Suzuki….
Suzuki moved for summary judgment asserting: (1) the rescue doctrine does not apply to product liability actions;and (2) even if it does,McCoy must still,but cannot,prove Suzuki proximately caused his injuries.The trial court found the rescue doctrine applies to product liability actions but concluded any alleged defect in the Suzuki was not the proximate cause of McCoy’s injuries and,accordingly,granted summary judgment of dismissal….
[McCoy appealed the dismissal and the Court of Appeals reversed,finding the rescue doctrine applies in product liability actions just as it does in negligence actions,but that an injured rescuer need not prove the defendant proximately caused his injuries.Instead the court concluded the rescuer need only prove the defendant proximately caused the danger and that the rescuer was injured while rescuing.]