Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Erie R.R. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• refuting view that rescue doctrine should not apply when, in fact, rescue attempt was futile
• refuting view that rescue doctrine should not apply when, in fact, rescue attempt was futile
• allowing recovery for claimant who was injured while attempting to rescue his cousin who had been thrown from a moving train
• in the rescue context, “the law does not ignore the reactions of the mind in tracing conduct to its consequences. It recognizes them as normal.”
• \Certainly [the rescuer] believed that good would come of his search upon the bridge.... The law cannot say of his belief that a reasonable man would have been unable to share it.\
• “The railroad company whose train approaches without signal is a wrongdoer toward the traveler surprised between the rails, but a wrongdoer also to the bystander who drags him from the path.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).