Must Plaintiff Show Proximate Causation Under the ...
McCoy argues the rescue doctrine relieves the rescuer-plaintiff of proving the defendant’s wrongdoing proximately caused his injuries.McCoy asserts a rescuer may prevail in a suit by showing the defendant proximately caused the danger and that,while serving as rescuer,the plaintiff was injured.The Court of Appeals agreed stating the rescue doctrine “varies the ordinary rules of negligence.” McCoy,85 Wash.App.at 110 (citing Solgaard v.Guy F.Atkinson Co.,6 Cal.3d 361 (1971)).
The Court of Appeals erred on this point….[The rescuer,like any other plaintiff,must still show the defendant proximately caused his injuries.]
In Maltman [v.Sauer,84 Wash.2d 975 (1975)] a rescue helicopter was called to the scene of an auto accident to transport one of the injured to the hospital.However,the rescue helicopter crashed on the way to the scene killing the entire crew.A wrongful death suit was brought on behalf of the deceased crew members under the rescue doctrine against the party which allegedly caused the car accident in the first place.We … concluded,as a matter of law,the car accident was not the proximate cause of the helicopter crash and,accordingly,dismissed.(https://www.daowen.com)
We adhere to Maltman noting its requirement that a rescuer show the defendant proximately caused his injuries is in keeping with general principles of liability.