Eckert v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Kings General Term · 1870 · Torts

TortsNegligenceContributory NegligenceRescuenegligencecontributory negligencerescuedue care

Facts

The jury found that the accident was caused by the defendants' negligence and that the deceased was free from fault or negligence. A little child was in imminent peril from the defendants' approaching train, which was being run in a very negligent way. The deceased voluntarily attempted to save the child, succeeded in removing the child beyond danger, and was killed in the process. It was undisputed that, but for this voluntary act exposing himself to imminent danger, the accident to him would not have happened.

Issue

Whether the deceased's voluntary act of exposing himself to imminent danger in order to save a child from a negligently operated train constituted negligence in law so as to bar recovery. More generally, the question was whether a person injured while humanely attempting, without actual negligence, to save another from peril created by the defendant's negligence may recover.

Rule

A person engaged in the performance of a legal duty, in a meritorious and praiseworthy act, or in the exercise of a legal right, who is injured through the negligence of another, is entitled to recover. Recovery is not barred simply because the injured person's act cooperated with the defendant's negligence; to bar recovery, the act must itself be unlawful or negligent. If the act is lawful and done with due care, prudence, and caution, the defendant's negligence alone makes the defendant liable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Orion Freight Lines left a delivery truck rolling downhill because its driver failed to set the brake. Seeing the truck headed toward a stroller in a crosswalk, Daniel Ruiz ran into the street and pushed the stroller clear, but he was struck by the truck. The jury finds Daniel acted carefully and without rashness.

If Daniel sues Orion Freight Lines for negligence, which is the best argument for allowing recovery?

Explanation. The majority rule is that recovery is not barred merely because the plaintiff's act cooperated with the defendant's negligence. To bar recovery, the plaintiff's act must itself be unlawful or negligent. A humane rescue undertaken with due care, prudence, and caution is a meritorious and praiseworthy act, so the defendant's negligence remains the basis of liability. (Derived from Eckert v. Long Island Railroad Co. (n.d.).)