to be intoxicated it may be assumed, if he does not appear to be physically incapacitated, that he will take some precautions to preserve himself from injury. It is neither axiomatic nor knowledge common to all that men when drinking are utterly reckless of their safety or insensible to their duty to protect themselves.14

Excuses for Failure to Avoid Injury

108. Rescue of Person from Position of Imminent Peril.-It has been noted that one who is aware of a danger and fails to take measures to avoid an injury therefrom is guilty of contributory negligence and barred of recovery in an action at law.15 To this general rule, however, the courts have established certain exceptions or limitations, one of which applies to cases of injury sustained in attempting to rescue others from imminent peril. The rule, as usually stated, declares that it is not contributory negligence in a person to risk his life, or place himself in a position of great danger, in an effort to save the life of another, or to rescue another from a sudden peril. or great bodily harm,16 unless his act may be said to have been rash and reckless in the judgment of prudent persons generally.17 In

v. Johnson, 92 Ala. 204, 9 So. 269, 25
A. S. R. 35 and note.
Notes: 25 A. S. R. 44; Ann. Cas.
1914D 114.

14. Little Rock, Ry., etc., R. Co. v. Billings, 173 Fed. 903, 98 C. C: A. 467, 19 Ann. Cas. 1173, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1031.

15. See supra, par. 93.

16. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Lederman, 187 Ill. 463, 58 N. E. 367, 79 A. S. R. 226, 52 L.R.A. 655; Saylor v. Parsons, 122 Ia. 679, 98 N. W. 500, 101 A. S. R. 283, 64 L.R.A. 542; Becker v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 110 Ky. 474, 61 S. W. 997, 96 A. S. R. 459, 53, L.R.A. 267; Peyton v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 861, 6 So. 690, 17 A. S. R. 430; Whitworth v. Shreveport Belt R. Co., 112 La. 363, 36 So. 414, 65 L.R.A. 129; Maryland Steel Co. v. Marney, 88 Md. 482, 42 Atl. 60, 71 A. S. R. 441, 42 L.R.A. 842; Harris v. Clinton Tp., 64 Mich. 447, 31 N. W. 425, 8 A. S. R. 842; Taylor v. Home Telephone Co., 163 Mich. 458, 128 N. W. 728, 31 L.R.A.(N. S.) 385; Donahoe v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 560, 53 Am. Rep. 594; Bracey v. Northwestern Imp. Co., 41 Mont. 338, 109 Pac. 706, 137 A. S. R. 738; Da Rin v.

Casualty Co., 41 Mont. 175, 108 Pac.
649, 137 A. S. R. 709, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.)
1164; Eckert v. Long Island R. Co.,
43 N. Y. 502, 3 Am. Rep. 721; Norris
v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N. C.
505, 67 S. E. 1017, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.)
1069 and note; Pennsylvania Co. v.
Langendorf, 48 Ohio St. 316, 28 N. E.
172, 29 A. S. R. 553, 13 L.R.A. 190;
Corbin v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. St.
461, 45 Atl. 1070, 78 A. S. R. 825,
49 L.R.A. 715 and note; Mobile,
etc., R. Co. v. Ridley, 114 Tenn. 727,
86 S. W. 606, 4 Ann. Cas. 925 and
note.

Note: 12 L.R.A. 282.

17. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Liderman, 187 Ill. 463, 58 N. E. 367, 79 A. S. R. 226, 52 L.R.A. 655; Peyton v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 861, 6 So. 690, 17 A. S. R. 430; Da Rin v. Casualty Co., 41 Mont. 175, 108 Pac. 649, 137 A. S. R. 709, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1164; Bracey v. Northwestern Imp. Co., 41 Mont. 338, 109 Pac. 706, 137 A. S. R. 738; Norris v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N. C. 505, 67 S. E. 1017, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1069 and note; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, 69 Ohio St. 123, 68 N. E. 703, 100 A. S. R. 658, 63 L.R.A. 504; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Rid

other words, in attempting to save the life of another one is justified in exposing himself to danger in a manner that under other circumstances would deprive him of legal redress for injuries sustained. 18 For example, going into a trench filled with deadly gas, negligently left in a public street by a municipality, to rescue one who, having gone there to recover an article accidentally dropped, has been overcome by the gas, has been held not to be, as a matter of law, such negligence as will relieve the municipality from liability for the rescuer's death in case he also is overcome and dies.19 Similarly, it has been held very often that one may attempt the rescue of a person imperilled by an approaching train, without being chargeable with contributory negligence.20 The fact that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant does not affect his right of recovery. But it is essential that the danger to the person attempted to be rescued be imminent. Whether in any particular case the plaintiff was justified in taking the risk of injury, or whether he acted recklessly in the judgment of prudent persons, is for the jury's determination.3

109. Responsibility for Peril of Person Attempted to Be Rescued.— To justify a recovery for injuries received in an attempt to rescue another from a position of peril, it must be made to appear that the perilous situation of the person attempted to be rescued was produced by the act of the defendant. Thus, where the injuries co..plained of appear to have been sustained in an attempt to rescue

ley, 114 Tenn. 727, 86 S. W. 606, 4 69 Ohio St. 123, 68 N. E. 703, 100 A. Ann. Cas. 925 and note. S. R. 658, 63 L.R.A. 504.

Notes: 12 L.R.A. 282; 49 L.R.A 715, 721; 19 Ann. Cas. 441.

2. Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. St. 74, 27 Am. Rep. 684; Wright v. Atlantio

18. Notes: 4 Ann. Cas. 928; 19 Ann. Coast Line R. Co., 110 Va. 670, 66 S. Cas. 441. E. 848, 19 Ann. Cas. 439, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 972.

19. Corbin v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa St. 461, 45 Atl. 1070, 78 A. S. R. 825, 49 L.R.A. 715.

20. Becker v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 110 Ky. 474, 61 S. W. 997, 96 A. S. R. 459, 53 L.R.A. 267; Harris v. Clinton Tp., 64 Mich. 447, 31 N. W. 425, 8 A. S. R. 842; Donahoe v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 560, 53 Am. Rep. 594; Norris v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 152 N. C. 500, 67 S. E. 1017, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1069: Pennsylvania Co. v. Langendorf, 48 Ohio St. 316, 28 N. E. 172, 29 A. S. R. 553, 13 L.R.A. 190; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, 69 Ohio St. 123, 63 N. E. 703, 100 A. S. R. 658, 63 L.R.A. 504.

Note: 49 L.R.A. 717.

1. Whitworth v. Shreveport Belt R. Co., 112 La. 363, 36 So. 414, 65 L.R.A. 129; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch,

3. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Liderman, 187 Ill. 463, 58 N. E. 367, 79 A. S. R. 226, 52 L.R.A. 655; Bracey v. Northwestern Imp. Co., 41 Mont. 338, 109 Pac. 706, 137 A. S. R. 738; Eckert v. Long Island R. Co., 43 N. Y. 502, 3 Am. Rep. 721; Pennsylvania Co. v. Langendorf, 48 Ohio St. 316, 28 N. E. 172, 29 A. S. R. 553, 13 L.R.A. 190. Notes: 4 Ann. Cas. 929; 19 Ann. Cas. 442.

4. Donahoe v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. 560, 53 Am. Rep. 594; Bracey v. Northwestern Imp. Co., 41 Mont. 338, 109 Pac. 706, 137 A. S. R. 738; Wright v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 110 Va. 670, 66 S. E. 848, 19 Ann. Cas. 439, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 972.

Note: 4 Ann. Cas. 929.

another from an approaching train, it must be further shown that the railroad company was negligent in so operating the train as to imperil the person attempted to be rescued.5 Hence, there can be no recovery where a woman is struck by a passing freight train while she is standing on the railroad track in front of the train, waving to the engineer to stop, in order to prevent an accident to her mother, who, knowing that the train is approaching, is walking towards the track with the evident purpose of crossing it, and who, without looking to see how near the train is, steps on the track immediately in front of the locomotive and is killed. It has been asserted, however, in a number of cases that contributory negligence on the part of the person attempted to be rescued will not defeat a recovery. But no recovery should be allowed where it appears that the perilous situation was due to the fault of the rescuer, or was produced by the act of the person rescued. In other words, a person who places himself in peril is not guilty of negligence toward another which entitles the latter to recover for injury suffered in attempting to rescue him from his peril.9

110. Saving or Attempting to Save Property.-While it is very generally held, as has been noted, that where one is exposed to peril by the negligence of another, the latter is liable in damages for inju ries received by a third person in a reasonable effort to rescue the person imperiled,10 considerable divergence exists between the courts. as to how far this rule will be extended in an effort to save property endangered by the negligence of another. The question has provoked much judicial discussion. Some jurisdictions deny the right to recover at all, while others have extended the rule so as to give the party injured redress where his effort to save property has been such as a reasonably prudent man would have made under similar circumstances. The weight of modern authority favors the latter rule.11 No one, however, should be permitted to recover for injury sustained in attempting to recover mere property in the face of obvious danger

5. Wright v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 110 Va. 670, 66 S. E. 848, 19 Ann." Cas. 439, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 972.

6. Wright v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 110 Va. 670, 66 S. E. 848, 19 Ann. Cas. 439, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 972.

7. Norris v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N. C. 505, 67 S. E. 1017, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1069; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, 69 Ohio St. 123, 68 N. E. 703, 100 A. S. R. 658, 63 L.R.A. 504. Notes: 4 Ann. Cas. 929; 19 Ann. Cas. 442.

8. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Liderman, 187 Ill. 463, 58 N. E. 367, 79

A. S. R. 226, 52 L.R.A. 655.

9. Saylor v. Parsons, 122 Ia. 679, 98 N. W. 500, 101 A. S. R. 283, 64 L.R.A. 542.

10. See supra, par. 109.

11. Cook v. Johnston, 58 Mich. 437, 25 N. W. 388, 55 Am. Rep. 703; Pegram v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 139 N. C. 303, 51 S. E. 975, 4 Ann. Cas. 214 and note; McKay v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 160 N. C. 260, 75 S. E. 1081, Ann. Cas. 1914C 412 and note.

Note: 49 L.R.A. 719.

such as no reasonably prudent man would under the circumstances incur.19

111. Sudden Peril or Emergency.-In the foregoing discussion it has been noted that a person is bound to use his intelligence and senses to discover dangers and upon their discovery to exercise diligence to avoid an injury therefrom.13 But while he is bound to take active measures to preserve himself from impending harm,1 14 he is by no means held to the same judgment and activity under all circumstances. The opportunity to think and act must be taken into consideration.15 And although he may not have taken the safest course or acted with the best judgment or greatest prudence he may yet recover for injuries sustained if he can show that he was required to act suddenly or in an emergency, without opportunity for deliberation.16 It has been said that a choice of evils may often.

12. Pegram v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 139 N. C. 303, 51 S. E. 975, 4 Ann. Cas. 214.

13. See supra, par. 99, 100. 14. See supra, par. 98.

15. Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682; Dickson v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 124 Mo. 140, 27 S. W. 476, 46 A. S. R. 429, 25 L.R.A. 320; Valin v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 82 Wis. 1, 51 N. W. 1084, 33 A. S. R.

17.

16. Union Pac. R. Co. v. McDonald, 152 U. S. 262, 14 S. Ct. 619, 38 U. S. (L. ed.) 434; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682; Stack v. East St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 245 Ill. 308, 92 N. E. 241, 137 A. S. R. 318; Pennsylvania Co. v. Roney, 89 Ind. 453, 46 Am. Rep. 173; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Crist, 116 Ind. 446, 19 N. E. 310, 9 A. S. R. 865, 2 L.R.A. 450; Clarke v. Pennsylvania Co., 132 Ind. 199, 31 N. E. 808, 17 L.R.A. 811, approved in McIntyre v. Orner, 166 Ind. 57, 76 N. E. 750, 117 A. S. R. 359, 8 Ann. Cas. 1087, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1130; Cumberland Telephone, etc., Co. v. Yeiser, 141 Ky. 15, 131 S. W. 1049, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1137; Clements v. Louisiana Electric Light Co., 44 La. 692, 11 So. 51, 32 A. S. R. 348, 16 LR.A. 43; Navailles v. Dielmann, 124 La. 421, 50 So. 449, 134 A. S. R. 508; Maryland Steel Co. v. Marney, 88 Md. 482, 42 Atl. 60, 71 A. S. R. 441, 42 L.R.A. 842; Lund

v. Tyngsboro, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 563, 59 Am. Dec. 159; Linnehan v. Sampson, 126 Mass. 506, 30 Am. Rep. 692; Di Bari v. J. W. Bishop Co., 199 Mass. 254, 85 N. E. 89, 127 A. S. R. 497, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 773; Lemay v. Springfield St. R. Co., 210 Mass. 63, 96 N. E. 79, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 43 and note; Harris v. Clinton Tp., 64 Mich. 447, 31 N. W. 425, 8 A. S. R. 842; Dickson v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 124 Mo. 140, 27 S. W. 476, 46 A. S. R. 429, 25 L.R.A. 320; Lincoln Rapid Transit Co. v. Nichols, 37 Neb. 332, 55 N. W. 872, 20 L.R.A. 853; Connelly v. Trenton Pass. R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 700, 29 Atl. 438, 44 A. S. R. 424; Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott, 58 N. J. L. 682, 34 Atl. 1094, 55 A. S. R. 620, 33 L.R.A. 122; Tuttle v. Atlantic City R. Co., 66 N. J. L. 327, 49 Atl. 450, 88 A. S. R. 491, 54 L.R.A. 582; Blackwell Lynchburg, etc., R. Co., 111 N. C. 151, 16 S. E. 12, 32 A. S. R. 786, 17 L.R.A. 729; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Snyder, 55 Ohio St. 342, 45 N. E. 559, 60 A. S. R. 700; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. St. 292, 72 Am. Dec. 787; Vallo v. United States Exp. Co., 147 Pa. St. 404, 23 Atl. 594, 30 A. S. R. 741, 14 L.R.A. 743; South West Imp. Co. v. Smith, 85 Pa. 306, 7 S. E. 365, 17 A. S. R. 59; Walton v. Miller, 109 Va. 210, 63 S. E. 458, 132 A. S. R. 908; Cottrill v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 Wis. 634, 73 N. W. 376, 32 Am. Rep. 796; Valin v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co.,

V.

be all that is left to a man, and he is not to blame if he chooses one, nor if he chooses the greater, if he is in circumstances of difficulty and danger at the time, and compelled to decide hurriedly.17 Of course, the presence of sudden peril will not excuse all errors of judgment and all omissions to act; such diligence must be exercised as the circumstances permit,18 the standard of care being that of a person of ordinary prudence when confronted with the same situation.19 There is no rule of law which prescribes any particular act to be done or omitted by a person who finds himself in a place of danger. In the variety of circumstances which constantly arise it is impossible to announce such a rule. The only requirement of the law is that the conduct of the person involved shall be consistent with what a man of ordinary prudence would do under like circumstances. 20 And whether the plaintiff exercised such care is for the jury's determination. To authorize a recovery it must be shown. that the emergency was brought about by the acts of the defendant; for, of course, no one is to be held liable for the acts of others.2 And very plainly if the plaintiff was responsible for the peril he is not entitled to urge it as a ground for recovery.s

112. Nature of Peril.-To excuse acts done in the face of sudden peril, it must be made to appear, as a matter of fact, that the danger was imminent and adequate to prevent the exercise of sound judgment, though it need not have been actual. Such a peril may be presented by the rapid approach of a vehicle on the highway. And so it has been held that if a person, seeing a car which has been

82 Wis. 1, 51 N. W. 1084, 33 A. S. R. han v. Sampson, 126 Mass. 506, 30

17.

Note: 38 Am. Rep. 599.

17. Lincoln Rapid Transit Co. v. Nichols, 37 Neb. 332, 55 N. W. 872, 20 L.R.A. 853.

18. Lemay v. Springfield St. R. Co., 210 Mass. 63, 96 N. E. 79, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 43.

19. Burger v. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 139 Ia. 645, 117 N. W. 35, 130 A. S. R. 343; Lincoln Rapid Transit Co. v. Nichols, 37 Nob. 332, 55 N. W. 872, 20 L.R.A. 853; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Snyder, 55 Ohio St. 342, 45 N. E. 559, 60 A. S. R. 700.

Note: 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 44, 49.
20. Stack v. East St. Louis, etc., R.
Co., 245 Ill. 308, 92 N. E. 241, 137 A.
S. R. 318.

Am. Rep. 692; Connelly v. Trenton
Pass. R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 700, 29 Atl.
438, 44 A. S. R. 424; Pennsylvania R.
Co. v. Snyder, 55 Ohio St. 342, 45
N. E. 559, 60 A. S. R. 700.

2. McIntyre v. Orner, 166 Ind. 57, 76 N. E. 750, 117 A. S. R. 359, 8 Ann. Cas. 1087, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1130; Walton v. Miller, 109 Va. 210, 63 S. E. 458, 132 A. S. R. 908.

Note: 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 55.

3. Cumberland Telephone, etc., Co. v. Yeiser, 141 Ky. 15, 131 S. W. 1049, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1137; Aiken v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 130 Pa. St. 380, 18 Atl. 619, 17 A. S. R. 775.

Note: 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 54, 63. 4. Note: 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 48, 50. 5. Navailles v. Dielmann, 124 La. 1. Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 421, 50 So. 449, 134 A. S. R. 508; 17 Ill. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682; Burger Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott, 58 v. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 139 Ia. 645, N. J. L. 682, 34 Atl. 1094, 55 A. S. R. 117 N. W. 35, 130 A. S. R. 343; Linne- 620, 33 L.R.A. 122.