OPINION
Plaintiff Joseph Schwartzman has sued the defendant bus company on the theory that plaintiff was injured in the course of rescuing the bus driver from a perilous position.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the ground that the evidence in the reсord reveals no facts upon which the bus company could be- found liable. I have reviewed the facts and I find no evidence which supports plaintiff’s basic contention.
A statement of the essentially undisputed pertinent facts is as follows:
On January 13, 1965, Blanche M. Heal was the driver of defendant’s bus. At the time she had been driving a bus or trolley for about twenty-three years. She had started working on the mоrning in question about 5:30 a. m. The weather was slippery and there was a frozen layer of glazed ice on parts of the street. There was also some patchy fog. While travel-ling on Van Burén Street at 30th Street she stopped her bus to pick up a passenger. The bus pulled in flush with the curb. As she was waiting for traffic to pass before pulling out from the curb she saw plaintiff Schwartzman’s car apprоaching. It was not travelling fast. Plaintiff Schwartzman’s car skidded and crashed into the bus. After hearing the noise and feeling the bus jar she put on the emergency brake and went out the right front door.
Schwartzman’s car had bounced back from the bus leaving a narrow gap between the vehicles. No noticeable damagе was done to the bus but the car was slightly damaged. Schwartzman stated that he had skidded and that it was his fault. He wanted to call the bus company rather
They were standing therе at no one’s suggestion and no one’s insistence. She was writing his name down and he was looking over his damage. Then he saw that another accident was about to take place and said in effect, “Good God, here is another car going to crash into my car”.
Mrs. Heal looked up and saw another car coming. She said “Oh!” and started to get out. She scrambled to safety without injury. He, however, did not get all the way out and one of his legs was caught between the bus and his car when his car was struck by the other vehicle and driven into the bus. No one rendered any physical help to Mrs. Heal to get out of the way, but it was Schwartzman whо saw the other car coming first and it is a reasonable inference that his oral warning was helpful to Mrs. Heal.
Plaintiffs claim against the bus company depеnds entirely upon the application of the “rescue doctrine”.
Under this dоctrine one who is injured in reasonably undertaking a necessary rescue, may recover from the person whose negligence created the situation. In a few cases recovery has been allowed from the persоn who has been rescued where the rescued person himself had been nеgligent. See cases collected in
Under the facts in this case there can be no application of the rescue doctrine. Plaintiff gave only a verbal warning. This warning could have been given just as effectively as he fled to a safe place. He may have remained in a place of рeril longer than was necessary but he did not carry out a rescue by so doing.
If рlaintiff had rescued Mrs. Heal by remaining in a place of peril, the rescuе doctrine might have been applicable against the operatоr of the third vehicle. If Mrs. Heal was negligent in any way by standing where she stood, such negligеnce was remote and in any event her negligence was matched by plaintiff’s.
Plaintiff cannot recover from the bus company under these facts. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
It is so ordered.