L.S. Ayres & Company v. Hicks

Supreme Court of Indiana · 1942 · Torts

220 Ind. 86 (1942)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsrescue dutyinviteeinstrumentality under defendant's controlaggravation of injurydiscovered perillast clear chance analogyreasonable care

Facts

A six-year-old boy accompanied his mother to the appellant's department store and fell while descending on an escalator. His fingers were caught in the moving parts where the escalator disappeared into the floor at the second-floor landing. The jury's interrogatory answers established that the escalator itself was not defectively chosen, constructed, or operated, but that after the boy's fingers were caught the escalator continued to run approximately 70 steps or more before being stopped, his fingers were not released for 3 to 5 minutes, and his injuries were increased by the grinding effect that continued until the escalator stopped. The store had clerks working within 50 feet, though all had not been instructed how to stop the escalator.

Issue

When a store is not negligent in causing a customer's initial injury on an escalator, does it nevertheless owe a legal duty to take reasonable affirmative steps to rescue or aid the injured, helpless invitee and avoid aggravating the injury? If so, may the plaintiff recover only for the aggravation rather than for the entire injury?

Rule

Although there is no general duty to rescue a person in peril, a legal obligation to take positive or affirmative steps to rescue may arise when the injured person is helpless and in peril and the defendant is a master or invitor, or the injury resulted from an instrumentality under the defendant's control. In such a case, even if the defendant was not at fault for the initial injury, the defendant must exercise reasonable care after knowledge of the plaintiff's peril and helpless condition to avoid aggravating the injury. Recovery is limited to the aggravation proximately caused by the defendant's actionable negligence, not the initial injury.

🔒

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.

At a furniture showroom in Indianapolis, eight-year-old Nora Kim accompanied her father while he browsed. Nora slipped beside a moving display conveyor used to carry boxed lamps between floors, and her sleeve became caught; nearby employees saw her pinned but spent two minutes arguing over which switch stopped the machine, during which the fabric tightened and fractured her wrist.

If the showroom was not negligent in designing or operating the conveyor before Nora fell, which is the best statement of the showroom’s liability?

Explanation. The majority rule is that although there is no general duty to rescue, an invitor controlling the instrumentality that caused the injury owes a duty to use reasonable care after it knows the invitee is helpless and in peril. If the defendant was not at fault for the initial accident, liability extends only to aggravation proximately caused by the negligent failure to aid, not the original injury.