McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corporation

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel One · 1997 · Torts

936 P.2d 31 (1997)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsRescue doctrineProducts liabilitySummary judgmentProximate causerescuerimminent perilreasonable appearance of peril

Facts

James McCoy saw a Suzuki Samurai swerve across the freeway and roll after hitting black ice, and he stopped to help its occupants. He then assisted a state trooper by placing flares and directing traffic near the accident scene, where conditions included darkness, black ice, and approaching traffic around a slight curve. Emergency workers removed the driver at about 6:50 p.m., and shortly before 7:00 p.m., while McCoy was returning to his car, he was struck by a hit-and-run vehicle. The McCoys sued Suzuki, alleging a product liability claim sufficient to invoke the rescue doctrine.

Issue

Whether the rescue doctrine may apply to a claim brought under the Washington Product Liability Act, and if so, whether summary judgment was improper because factual issues remained as to proximate cause, imminent peril, the reasonableness of McCoy's perception of peril, and whether he was still acting within the scope of the rescue when injured.

Rule

The Washington Product Liability Act does not eliminate a rescuer's right to recover against a party whose conduct created the peril. A rescuer who qualifies under French v. Chase may recover if: (1) the defendant's negligence proximately caused peril, or the reasonable appearance of peril, to the life or limb of another; (2) the peril or appearance of peril was imminent; (3) a reasonably prudent person in the rescuer's circumstances would determine that such imminent peril existed; and (4) the rescuer, in effecting the rescue, acted with reasonable care under the circumstances. The doctrine applies so long as the defendant's conduct created the peril that invited rescue, and these questions are generally for the trier of fact.

🔒

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 Boise, a compact SUV allegedly lost steering control because of a manufacturing defect and spun into the shoulder of an interstate at dusk. Seeing the vehicle partly blocking a lane and its driver slumped over the wheel, Elena Park stopped to help and was injured while waving traffic away from the scene before paramedics arrived.

If Elena sues the SUV manufacturer, what is the strongest argument against dismissing her claim on the ground that product liability does not extend to rescuers?

Explanation. The majority held that the product liability statute did not eliminate a rescuer's right to recover against the party whose conduct created the peril. The rescue doctrine does not depend on the particular legal theory so long as the defendant's conduct created the peril inviting rescue. The other choices overstate liability or incorrectly require a direct duty to the rescuer.