Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Oscar Klein Plumbing & Heating v. Boyd
Citations: 461 So. 2d 221; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 8; 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16122Docket: No. 83-2095
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 18, 1984; Florida; State Appellate Court
The appeal involves the application of the "rescue doctrine" regarding injuries sustained by Janet Boyd while attempting to protect her property from damage caused by Oscar Klein Plumbing and Heating's negligence. Boyd, who owned a wholesale costume jewelry business, was affected by concrete dust generated during plumbing work, which threatened her jewelry. Unable to hire a cleaning service due to the value of her items, she and her family worked extensively to clean the jewelry but ultimately developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome from the effort. Boyd sued Klein for negligence related to both property damage and personal injuries. The trial court allowed the jury to consider the rescue doctrine, which permits recovery for injuries incurred while reasonably attempting to rescue property from imminent danger caused by another's negligence. The jury found in favor of Boyd for personal injuries, awarding her $800,000, later reduced to $82,000 due to comparative negligence. Appellants argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the rescue doctrine, asserting that Boyd did not demonstrate that her injuries were a foreseeable consequence of Klein's negligence without the doctrine's application. The court agreed, emphasizing that for the rescue doctrine to apply, three elements must be met: the defendant's negligence, the imminent peril of the property, and the reasonableness of the rescuer's actions. The court noted the absence of evidence supporting Boyd’s claim of imminent peril, citing previous cases that affirm the necessity of this element for the doctrine to apply. Appellee cites Wagner v. International Ry. Co. to argue that imminent peril creates a jury question. In Wagner, a rescuer walked 400 feet to save a victim, and the defendant claimed the delay allowed the rescuer to deliberate, thus breaking the continuity of the response. The court countered that the nature of the rescuer's action, regardless of deliberation, is integral to the situation. The court maintained that "imminent" does not equate to "instantaneous," but it rejected the idea that any rescue attempt qualifies as imminent peril. The term "imminent," as defined, suggests a danger that is threatening and about to occur. In this case, the court determined that the danger was too remote, as the appellee took months to clean her jewelry, indicating no imminent peril existed legally. Consequently, the trial judge's instruction on the rescue doctrine was deemed erroneous, leading to the conclusion that without this doctrine, there was insufficient evidence of proximate cause for the negligence claim. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Janet E. Boyd Co. Inc. for property damage but reversed the judgment regarding Janet E. Boyd's personal injury claim. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with concurrence from Letts and Hurley, JJ.