Guarino v. Mine Safety Appliance Co., 25 N.Y.2d 460 (1969)
The “danger invites rescue” doctrine applies regardless of whether the initial peril was caused by negligence or breach of warranty, extending liability to rescuers injured while aiding a person placed in imminent danger by a culpable act.
Summary
This case addresses whether the “danger invites rescue” doctrine applies when the initial peril arises from a breach of warranty rather than negligence. Rooney, a sewage worker, died due to a defective oxygen mask manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance Co. Other workers, including Guarino, Messina, and Fattore, attempted to rescue Rooney. Guarino and Messina died, and Fattore and others were injured during the rescue attempt. The court held that the rescue doctrine applies, extending liability to the manufacturer for injuries sustained by rescuers, regardless of whether the initial culpable act was negligence or breach of warranty. The focus is on the defendant’s culpable act placing another in imminent peril, which invites rescue.
Facts
John Rooney, a sewage engineer, died from gas asphyxiation while inspecting a sewer, wearing a defective oxygen mask manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance Co.
Fattore entered the sewer with Rooney; Guarino and Messina were stationed in the shaft. After Rooney collapsed, Fattore attempted a rescue but was overcome by gas and called for help.
Guarino and Messina entered the tunnel to rescue Rooney and Fattore but succumbed to the gas.
Other sewage workers were injured in the rescue attempt.
Rooney’s estate had previously recovered a judgment against the defendant based on breach of implied warranty.
Procedural History
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs (Guarino, Messina, Fattore, and other injured workers).
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the “danger invites rescue” doctrine applies when the initial peril is caused by a breach of warranty, rather than negligence, thus allowing recovery for injuries sustained by rescuers.
Holding
Yes, because a culpable act, whether stemming from negligence or breach of warranty, that places a person in imminent peril can lead to liability for damages sustained by a rescuer attempting to aid the imperiled victim.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the theory of the action—negligence or breach of warranty—is not significant when the “danger invites rescue” doctrine applies. Both negligence and breach of warranty are wrongful acts that can create a situation of peril.
The court cited Provenzo v. Sam, stating that the rescue doctrine applies when “one party by his culpable act has placed another person in a position of imminent peril which invites a third person, the rescuing plaintiff, to come to his aid.”
The court also cited Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., holding that “[a] breach of warranty * * * is not only a violation of the sales contract out of which the warranty arises but it is a tortious wrong.”
The court emphasized that the defendant committed a culpable act by manufacturing a defective mask, placing Rooney in peril and inviting rescue.
The court quoted Judge Cardozo in Wagner v. International Ry. Co.: “Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief…The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer.”
The court concluded that the rescuer’s status as a user or nonuser of the defective product is irrelevant; what matters is that they attempted to rescue someone imperiled by a “tortious wrong.”
The court found that the trial court’s charge to the jury, while not perfect, adequately conveyed the essential elements of the case and did not constitute reversible error.