rescue doctrine in Tennessee

1987Although the opinion of the majority is based upon established precedent regarding the rescue doctrine in Workers’ Com pensation cases in Tennessee, I think that not only was Lennon Co., Inc. v. Ridge, 219 Tenn. 623 , 412 S.W.2d 638 (1967), incorrectly decided at the time, but the Court should not now forego this opportunity to overrule Lennon and to adopt the rescue doctrine.

1987Although the opinion of the majority is based upon established precedent regarding the rescue doctrine in Workers’ Com pensation cases in Tennessee, I think that not only was Lennon Co., Inc. v. Ridge, 219 Tenn. 623 , 412 S.W.2d 638 (1967), incorrectly decided at the time, but the Court should not now forego this opportunity to overrule Lennon and to adopt the rescue doctrine.

1981Chattanooga Light & Power Co. v. Hodges, 109 Tenn. 331 , 70 S.W. 616 (1902), discussed cases from other jurisdictions for and against extension of the rescue doctrine to attempts to preserve personal property and, while purporting not to choose between the two, the court in fact followed the holdings of the cases extending the doctrine to rescue of personal property “where [the] effort to save property has been such as a reasonably prudent man would have made under similar circumstances.” 109 Tenn. at 336 , 70 S.W. 616 .

1981Chattanooga Light & Power Co. v. Hodges, 109 Tenn. 331 , 70 S.W. 616 (1902), discussed cases from other jurisdictions for and against extension of the rescue doctrine to attempts to preserve personal property and, while purporting not to choose between the two, the court in fact followed the holdings of the cases extending the doctrine to rescue of personal property “where [the] effort to save property has been such as a reasonably prudent man would have made under similar circumstances.” 109 Tenn. at 336 , 70 S.W. 616 .

1994The policy considerations underlying two other traditional exceptions to the doctrine of contributory negligence, the sudden emergency doctrine, see Johnson v. Copeland, 178 Tenn. 431 , 158 S.W.2d 986, 988 , (1942), and the rescue doctrine, see Ruth v. Ruth, 213 Tenn. 82 , 372 S.W.2d 285, 288-89 (1963), have been implicitly subsumed by our decision in McIntyre and should also impact the jury’s apportionment of fault between the parties in an appropriate case.

1994The policy considerations underlying two other traditional exceptions to the doctrine of contributory negligence, the sudden emergency doctrine, see Johnson v. Copeland, 178 Tenn. 431 , 158 S.W.2d 986, 988 , (1942), and the rescue doctrine, see Ruth v. Ruth, 213 Tenn. 82 , 372 S.W.2d 285, 288-89 (1963), have been implicitly subsumed by our decision in McIntyre and should also impact the jury’s apportionment of fault between the parties in an appropriate case.

1989In Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co., 619 S.W.2d 534 (Tenn.App.1981), this Court specifically applied the rescue doctrine to a case in which liability was predicated upon strict products liability.

1989In Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co., 619 S.W.2d 534 (Tenn.App.1981), this Court specifically applied the rescue doctrine to a case in which liability was predicated upon strict products liability.

1987Cf., e.g., Bell v. Kelso Oil Co., 597 S.W.2d 731 (Tenn.1980); Hudson v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 583 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn.1979).

1987Cf., e.g., Bell v. Kelso Oil Co., 597 S.W.2d 731 (Tenn.1980); Hudson v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 583 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn.1979).

1981Morgan v. Treadwell, 23 Tenn.App. 100 , 126 S.W.2d 888 (1938). 3 .

1981Morgan v. Treadwell, 23 Tenn.App. 100 , 126 S.W.2d 888 (1938). 3 .

1963For a person engaged in his ordinary affairs or in the mere protection of property knowingly and voluntarily to place himself in a position where he is liable to receive a serious injury is negligence which will preclude a recovery for an injury so received; but when the exposure is for the purpose of saving life it is not wrongful, and therefore not negligence, unless such as must be regarded as either rash or reckless.” 114 Tenn. at 734 , 86 S.W. at 608.