Rescuers sue Ohio woman saved from flaming vehicle

• WebFire

  MARION, Ohio (AP) -- Two Ohio men honored as heroes for their actions after a 2009 car crash are now suing the woman they rescued from a burning vehicle.
  
  The Columbus Dispatch reports the suit filed in central Ohio's Marion County by David Kelly and Mark Kincaid claims Theresa Tanner was at fault and that saving her left the men with disabling injuries. They're each seeking upwards of $25,000 in damages.
  
  Kelly tells the newspaper (http://bit.ly/poAg4a ) the smoke and fire did so much damage to his lungs that he can no longer carry a laundry basket upstairs in his home. He says he saw hair melting on Tanner's head and is haunted by those memories.
  
  Court records don't list an attorney for Tanner. Her husband told the Dispatch the family isn't commenting.

  Um...ok? You rescue someone from a burning vehicle and then you sue her? What the fuck is wrong with people?
• Steel Valley Football

  Burn. Her. Car. Down.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  It's Marion, OH. What do you expect? That place is trash.
  
  (queue Sage)
• Fly4Fun

  

  Ya, not seeing this working. I'd start somewhere along the lines of voluntary assumption of the risk.
• Iliketurtles

  

  LOL at these idiots. If they get any money from this then it will be just another joke of the justice system.
• Tiernan

  ernest_t_bass;848106 wrote:It's Marion, OH. What do you expect? That place is trash.
  
  (queue Sage)

  Your wife told me she was from Marion.
• tk421

  

  How the fuck do you sue someone for something you voluntarily did? She didn't hold a gun to their heads and make them rescue her.
• Quint

  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_doctrine
  

  In the USA, the rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that if a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that victim. This doctrine was originally created in case law by Wagner v. International Railway[1], 232 N.Y. 176 (1926), in which Justice Cardozo stated "Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief [...] The emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had."
  
  Essentially it means that the rescuer can recover damages from a defendant when the rescuer is injured rescuing someone. The defendant is usually negligent in causing the accident to occur. Other cases have occurred where the plaintiff is injured rescuing the defendant and is able to collect damages.
  
  In Wagner v. International Railway, riders on the defendant's trains were allowed to walk between cars while the train was moving. In one incident, a rider fell through the cars. The plaintiff, trying to help the fallen rider, was injured himself. The court found the defendant liable because of negligence to allow riders to walk between cars while the train was moving.
  
  Essentially, in its pure form the Rescue Doctrine boils down to 4 main elements - all of which must be met in order to bring it to bear for the person asserting its privilege.
  
  1. There must be peril or the appearance of peril to a third party, caused by the defendant.
  2. That peril or appearance of peril must be imminent
  3. A reasonable person would recognize the peril or appearance of peril and the plaintiff must also have actually recognized it.
  4. The plaintiff must have exercised reasonable care in effecting the rescue.

  It should be noted, the Fireman's Rule prevents police officers and firefighters from bringing these types of claims.
• Glory Days

  

  I read in another article the woman was attempting suicide.
• Heretic

  

  Glory Days;848218 wrote:I read in another article the woman was attempting suicide.

  
  Then, shouldn't she be suing them?
• enigmaax

  ccrunner609;848200 wrote:So disabled that they are asking for $25,000? Must not be too disabled.

  
  I don't think that is all they are asking for. I could be wrong, but I believe that number is some kind of dividing line for which court should handle the case.
• Tiger2003

  

  Heretic;848225 wrote:Then, shouldn't she be suing them?

  
  I laughed.
• THE4RINGZ

  

  If I had to live in Marion, I would kill myself too.
• Cat Food Flambe'

  

  What were the circumstances behind the accident itself? If she were, say, driving around with a .25 BAC and lost control of the vehicle as a result, she's fair game.
  
  Just sayin'...
• Glory Days

  

  Heretic;848225 wrote:Then, shouldn't she be suing them?

  
  touche'
• coyotes22

  

  WebFire;848102 wrote:Um...ok? You rescue someone from a burning vehicle and then you sue her? What the fuck is wrong with people?

  Kelly tells the newspaper (http://bit.ly/poAg4a ) the smoke and fire did so much damage to his lungs that he can no longer carry a laundry basket upstairs in his home. He says he saw hair melting on Tanner's head and is haunted by those memories.

  Shouldnt his wife be doing that anyway?!?!
  
  I call BS.
• LJ

  

  Cat Food Flambe';848513 wrote:What were the circumstances behind the accident itself? If she were, say, driving around with a .25 BAC and lost control of the vehicle as a result, she's fair game.
  
  Just sayin'...

  
  She purposely wrecked the car in an attempt to kill herself