This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

McCoy (P) stopped to assist with a Suzuki Samurai driving in front of him that had swerved off the road and rolled. P stopped and rendered assistance and shortly thereafter a State Patrol Officer arrived. P was asked to place flares and by his own judgment positioned himself 1/4 mile from the accident scene with a lit flare in each hand manually directing traffic to the inside lane. Two hours after the accident, the driver was removed, and the scene was cleared. P returned to his car with a lit flare in his roadside hand. When P was within three to four car lengths of the State trooper, the trooper pulled out without comment. Moments later, P was struck from behind while still walking on the roadway's shoulder by a hit and run driver. P filed a complaint against the driver of the Suzuki for negligence, the passenger of that car for grabbing the steering wheel, the State for the negligence of the trooper, and D and its parent corporation for the defective Samurai which allegedly caused the wreck in the first place. The only claim being presently considered is that against D. D moved for summary judgment asserting that the rescue doctrine does not apply to product liability actions and even if it did, P cannot prove that D proximately caused the injuries. The lower court dismissed, and the appeals court reversed. The court of appeals found that P demonstrated sufficient facts of rescuer status to put the issue of whether he met the four requirements to the jury.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.