Solomon v. Shuell

Michigan Court of Appeals · 1988 · Torts

TortsRescue doctrineComparative negligenceEvidencerescue doctrinereasonable beliefactual peril not requiredcomparative negligence

Facts

Detroit police officers in plain clothes and unmarked cars approached Alvin Solomon while surveilling robbery suspects. According to plaintiff's evidence, the officers did not identify themselves and handled Alvin roughly, prompting Alvin to call for his father, the decedent. Decedent came out of the house with a gun, and Shuell shot and killed him. At trial, plaintiff argued decedent reasonably believed Alvin was in danger and was acting in rescue, while defendant contended the officers identified themselves and decedent pointed or fired his gun first.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the rescue doctrine applied only if Alvin was actually in imminent and serious peril, rather than if decedent reasonably believed Alvin was in danger, and whether that error required reversal. The appeal also challenged admission of police reports and certain other evidence.

Rule

The rescue doctrine protects a person who goes to aid another not only when the other person is actually in peril, but also when the rescuer reasonably believes the other is in danger and acts to avert that danger. In a comparative negligence system, the trier of fact asks whether a reasonably prudent person would have acted as the rescuer did under the same or similar circumstances; if the rescuer acted unreasonably, damages are reduced by the rescuer's percentage of negligence.

🔒

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, Nora Patel saw two men in dark clothing force her neighbor's teenage son toward a van outside an apartment building. Believing the boy was being abducted, she ran into the street to pull him away and was struck by a delivery scooter; it later turned out the men were private security guards lawfully detaining the teen for shoplifting.

In the teen's negligence action against the scooter company, the company argues the rescue doctrine cannot apply because the teen was never actually in danger. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the rescue doctrine protects a rescuer who reasonably believes another is in danger and acts to avert that danger; actual peril is not required. The focus is on the reasonableness of the rescuer's behavior, not on whether the person aided was objectively in peril. A merely subjective belief is insufficient if unreasonable, and the doctrine does not automatically eliminate all assessment of the rescuer's fault under comparative negligence. (Derived from Solomon v. Shuell (n.d.).)