276 A.3d 108
N.J.2022Background:
- Ann Samolyk dove into a canal in Forked River to rescue neighbors’ dog after hearing calls for help; the dog was removed unharmed by others and Ann was found unconscious and later alleged neurological/cognitive injuries.
- Her husband John sued dog owners Ilona and Robert DeStefanis alleging their negligence in allowing the dog into the canal proximately caused Ann’s injuries and asserted a per quod claim for loss of consortium.
- The Law Division and the Appellate Division dismissed the complaint, concluding New Jersey had not extended the common-law rescue doctrine to protect property (including animals).
- Plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to follow Restatement (Second) of Torts § 472 and a majority of sister states that have applied the rescue doctrine to protect property; defendants argued the doctrine is limited to protecting human life.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the issue as a matter of common-law development and public policy, considering precedents emphasizing duty and foreseeability in rescue-doctrine cases.
- The Court affirmed: it declined to expand the rescue doctrine generally to cover property or animals, but held the doctrine can apply where acts that appear to protect property are in fact reasonable measures intended to protect human life.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rescue doctrine extends to property (the dog) | Samolyk: follow Restatement §472 and majority of states; rescuers should recover for property-based rescues | DeStefanis: doctrine limited to human life; NJ precedent rejects property extension | Court: decline broad extension to property; doctrine applies only when act is reasonably intended to protect human life |
| Whether summary judgment dismissal was proper on these facts | Samolyk: factual dispute whether her jump implicated protection of human life (would support claim) | DeStefanis: undisputed record shows Ann acted solely to save the dog, so no cognizable rescue claim | Court: dismissal proper—here Ann acted solely to save the dog, not to protect human life; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Int'l Ry. Co., 133 N.E. 437 (1921) (foundational statement of the rescue doctrine: "danger invites rescue")
- Ruiz v. Mero, 189 N.J. 525 (2007) (recognized rescue doctrine in NJ and discussed its limits)
- Estate of Desir v. Vertus, 214 N.J. 303 (2013) (clarified duty and foreseeability limits on rescue-doctrine liability)
- Provenzo v. Sam, 244 N.E.2d 26 (1968) (explained expansion from three-party to two-party rescue situations)
- Welch v. Hesston Corp., 540 S.W.2d 127 (1976) (example of jurisdiction refusing to extend rescue doctrine to property)