Able got into his car, released the brake, and prior to starting the engine, left it on a slight incline in order to pick up a broken bottle lying in the path of the car. The car started to roll in Able’s direction. Baker, a bystander, noticing that Able was oblivious to his peril, pushed him out of the path of the approaching car. Baker was then struck by the car and was seriously injured. Able lost his balance from being pushed by Baker, struck his head on the curbstone and was injured.
In the action by Baker against Able for his injury, Able’s best defense is:
A. That Able could not reasonably foresee that the incline was of sufficient angle to cause an unbraked car to roll.
B. That Baker was not a person within the risk of injury from Able’s act.
C. That Able could not reasonably foresee that a slowly rolling automobile would cause serious injury.
D. That Able had not created a risk of injury to any third person in front of the automobile and therefore cannot be liable to Baker.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer A is correct. If Able could not foresee any harm to anyone when he acted, then he owed no duty to prevent the harm.
Answer B is incorrect. Danger invites rescue. If it was negligent for Able to put himself in danger, Able would be liable for Baker’s injuries resulting from Baker’s attempt to rescue Able.
Answer C is incorrect. This choice should be eliminated first. There can be no question that a rolling car can cause serious injury. The only real factual issue is whether Able should have foreseen that an unbraked car on a slight incline would roll.
Answer D is incorrect. A rescuer can sue for damages even though the only foreseeable danger the defendant created was to him or herself.
I don’t like any of these answer choices, but I’m choosing B, by process of elimination. A is not a strong argument. If one leaves an “unbraked” car on an incline, he should be able to foresee that it could possibly roll backwards (especially if, as the facts indicate, he initially had the brake on while the car was on the incline—that should mean that he thought it could possibly roll without the brake). C is also not strong. One should expect injury (even serious injury) to result from anyone being hit by a moving car, no matter how fast it’s moving. D is not relevant. Able put himself in danger, and so he could still be liable to Baker on those grounds. So B makes the most sense. Baker was not in the path of the vehicle–he was off to the side and ran into the path of the vehicle when it started rolling backwards. I know this seems to bring in the rescuer rule, but I just don’t like A’s answer choice.
I didn’t like the answer choices either. But, it’s typical that the examiners use goofy, and what seems like all “wrong” answers, forcing us to pick the best of the wrong answers. However, negligent conduct that puts an individual in peril always invites a rescuer. That’s why I didn’t choose B. To me, A sounds closer to eliminating one of the elements – the “reasonably foreseeable” element as Able’s best defense. Soon, we’ll see the answer. This is a good learning tool.
Thank you for replying to me. I agree that the examiners use goofy answers at times. But, you’re right–the rescuer doctrine would make B the wrong answer. I just kept asking myself, “When have I ever parked on an incline and not used the brake?” I don’t know that a reasonable person would do that. But, as you said, we have to pick the best of the “wrong” answers. So A is probably the correct answer, as it is the only answer choice that would eliminate one of the necessary elements (if it was indeed reasonable). This is a great learning tool. Thanks again for your response.
Answer is A
A. Here, I believe that Able did not put himself in a position of danger(slight decline) because person that puts himself in danger owes a duty of reasonable care to his rescuer. Rescuers are not, as matter of law, precluded from recovery because they voluntarily placed themselves in danger. Accordingly, a rescuer can recover for damages from a defendant when they are injured rescuing someone. However, where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with reasonable care, and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt
The answer is A.
I will go with A.
A. is the correct answer (I think!).
The necessary elements for a claim in negligence are that 1. a duty of care was owed 2. the duty of care was breached 3. the breach caused the injury and 4. the injury resulting was a foreseeable consequence of that breach.
Here Able’s best defense is to assert that he could not have reasonably foreseen that the incline was sufficiently steep for the car to roll. He will be held to the standard of the ordinary reasonable prudent man. Therefore if the court finds that the ordinary man in Able’s position would not have foreseen that the car would roll given the incline then Able cannot be held liable.
B. is incorrect. Danger invites rescue. Baker is a rescuer. It is always foreseeable for a rescuer to attempt a rescue and so Baker is within the risk of injury.
C. is incorrect. The ordinary reasonable man would comprehend that a slowly moving vehicle can cause injury.
D. is incorrect. Whether Able created a risk of injury to a third party has no bearing on Baker’s ability to recover from Able.