EMERGENCY DOCTRINE
A principle that allows individuals to take action in the face of a sudden or urgent need for aid, without being subject to normal standards of reasonable care. Also called imminent peril doctrine, or sudden peril doctrine.
The emergency doctrine allows people to act in critical situations that call for quick action—a fire, an automobile crash, a collapsing building—without danger of recrimination.
An example of someone who might be covered under the emergency doctrine is a person who performs cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a heart attack victim and in so doing breaks several of the victim’s ribs. Another example is when a driver, surprised by a pedestrian who steps out from between two parked cars, swerves to miss the pedestrian but then hits another car.
The emergency doctrine also covers situa-
tions in which an individual acted in GOOD
FAITH when disaster seemed imminent even
though ultimately it was not. There is, however,
a fine distinction between the emergency doc-
trine and the rescue doctrine, which requires
that one who places a person in peril or in a sit-
uation with the appearance of imminent peril
owes a duty of reasonable care to one attempting
to rescue the person from the peril or appear-
ance of peril. In Harris v. Oaks Shopping Center,
Cal. App. 4th 206 (1999), a sand sculpture being
installed in a mall appeared to be about to col-
lapse. Harris, a mall employee, rushed over to
push a woman and her small child out of the
way. In his rush, he fell and injured his back. He
filed suit, but the jury found that since the sculp-
ture did not fall, there was no imminent danger;
moreover, there was no evidence of NEGLIGENCE
on the part of the mall or the sand sculptors.
Harris appealed, stating that the jury should
have been instructed that since he acted on what
he saw as an imminent threat, he had no obliga-
tion to prove actual negligence. He reasonably
believed that the sculpture was about to col-
lapse. The appellate court agreed and sent the
case back to trial court for a new trial, in which
the jury was to consider whether Harris acted
reasonably under the circumstances. The court
did, however, note that it was the rescue doctrine
that applied in this case because the plaintiff ’s
injuries stemmed from the attempted rescue,
