Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

The Rescue Doctrine in American law and the analysis of its Foundations in Iranian Law

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Mahdiye Sadeghian 1
Morteza Tabibi Jabaly 2
Alireza Yazdanian 3
Mohammad mahdi Alsharif 3
1 Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, University of Isfahan, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
The Rescue Doctrine is the focus of discussion on the civil liability of those endangering others toward Good Samaritans in American law. It means that rescuer who has been injured during the rescue have the right to receive compensation from a person that his harmful and culpable actions led to the need for that rescue operation, even if the attempt to save is unsuccessful. Because the harm incurred by the rescuer is the predictable result of negligence. In Iranian law, despite of not specifying this doctrine, the result of the analysis of the generalities of civil liability in the form of the Tasbib Institution is similar to American law and the damages to the rescuer can be claimed from causing of danger.
Keywords
Eghdam rule
Ehsan rule
Good Samaritan
Tasbib
Rescue Doctrine

Subjects

1. بادینی، حسن، فلسفه مسئولیت مدنی، تهران، شرکت سهامی انتشار، 1384.
2. باریکلو، علیرضا، مسئولیت مدنی، چ 4، تهران، نشر میزان، 1392.
3. بهرامی احمدی، حمید، حقوق مدنی(4) مسئولیت مدنی، چ 2، تهران، نشر میزان،1390.
4. بهروزی، ابوذر،« نگاهی نو به قاعده احسان با رویکرد اثبات ضمان»، فصلنامه شهر قانون، شماره 19، 1396.
5. جهانگیری آردکپان، طرلان، حمایت از یاری‌رسان نوع‌دوست (Good Samaritan)، درحوزه مسئولیت مدنی، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 1393.
6. خاکسار، فرانک، بررسی تطبیقی قاعده اقدام در حقوق اسلام با قاعده مشارکت در خطا در حقوق کامن‌لا، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه قم، 1387.
7. صفایی، سید حسین؛ رحیمی، حبیب الله، مسئولیت مدنی (الزامات خارج از قرارداد)، تهران، انتشارات سمت، 1398.
8. غفاری فارسانی، بهنام، مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از ترک نجات جان دیگری، چ اول، تهران، نشر میزان، 1387.
9. قاسم زاده، سید مرتضی، مبانی مسئولیت مدنی، چاپ پنجم، تهران، ص نشر میزان، 1387.
10. کاتوزیان، ناصر، الزام های خارج از قرارداد (مسئولیت مدنی): قواعد عمومی، ج1، تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 1390.
11. مصطفوی، سید مصطفی، «احسان؛ منبع مسئولیت»، فقه و حقوق، سال دوم، 1384.
12. یزدانیان، علیرضا، حقوق مدنی (قواعد عمومی مسئولیت مدنی)، ج 1، تهران، نشر میزان، 1386.
13. Allison v. Sverdrup & Parcel & Assoc., Inc.27, 738 S.W.2d 440 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)
14. Calvert v. Garvey Elevators, Inc., 236 Kan. 570, 694 P.2d 433 (1985)
15. Carson v. Headrick, 900 S.W.2d 685 (Tenn. 1995)
16. Cote v. Palmer, 127 Conn, 321 (1940)
17. Flowers v. Rock Creek Terrace, 308 Md. 432, 520 A.2d361 (1987)
18. In the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (2017), No. 111,987, Juan A. Apodaca (Appellant) v. Mark Willmore, Matthew Willmore and Oak River Insurance Company (Appellees), Syllabus by The Court.
19. Krauth v. Geller, 31 N.J. 270, 157 A.2d 129 (1960)
20. Sweetman v. State highway department, 357 N.W. 3d 783 (Mich.Ct. App, 1984)
21. Turpel v. Sayles, 692 P.2d 1290, 1291 (Nev. 1985)
22. Wagner v. international R. Co., 232NY. 176, 133 N.E. 437 (1921)
23. Berry, Kiel, (Espinoza V. Schulenburg: Arizona Adopts the Rescue Doctrine and Firefighter’s Rule), Arizona Law Review, Vol.49, 2007
24. Casselman, Margo R., (Re-Examining the Firefighter’s Rule in Arizona), Arizona Law Review, Vol.59, 2017.
25. Clark, John R., (The Fireman's Rule). Air Medical Journal 38, 2019.
26. Deniston, Marty K., (Hubbard v. Boelt: The Fireman´s Rule Extended), Energy Law Symposium, Iss.1, Article 7, 1981.
27. Fanzlaw, Amy J., (“A Sign of the Times”: How the Firefighter's Rule and the No-Duty-To- Rescue Rule Impact Convenience Stores' Liability for Failure to Aid a Public Safety Officer), Stetson Law Review, Vol.XXIII, 1994.
28. Garner, Brayan A. Black’s Law Dictionary. US, West Publishing Co., 1990.
29. Handley, Cristen C, (Back to the Basics: Restoring Fundamental Tort Principles by Abolishing the Professional-Rescuer’s Doctrine), Arkansas Law Review, Vol.68, 2015.
30. Heidt, Robert H., (When Plaintiffs Are Premium Planners for Their Injuries: A Fresh Look at the Fireman's Rule), Indiana Law Journal, Vol.82, Iss.3, Article 5, 2007.
31. Hohn, Christopher M., (The Missouri Firefighter's Rule), Missouri Law Review, Vol.59, Iss.2, Article 6, 1994.
32. Johnson, Eric E., Tort: Cases and Context, Vol.1, US, CALI eLangdell Press, 2015.
33. Kuklin, B., (Peril Invites Rescue: An Evolutionary Perspective). Hofstra Law Review. Vol. 35, 2006.
34. Mitchell Hamline School of Law, (Assumption of the Risk and the Fireman's Rule), William Mitchell Law Review, Vol.7, Iss.3, Article 5, 1981.
35. Noya, J.A., (Tort Law - The Application of the Rescue Doctrine under Comparative Negligence Principles: Govich v. North American Systems, Inc.), New Mexico Law Review, Vol 23, 1993.
36. Palumbo, Julianne, (Equal Protection and the Fireman's Rule in Ohio), Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol.38, Iss.1, 1987.
37. Riley, Benjamin K., (The Fireman's Rule: Defining Its Scope Using the Cost-Spreading Rationale), California Law Review, Vol.71, Iss.1, Article 6, 1983.
38. Rogers, W.V.H., Winfield and Jolowicz on tort. London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1994.
39. Varone, J.Curtis, Legal Consideration for Fire & Emergency Services, US, Delmar, Cengage Learning, 2007.
40. Zimmerman, Richard D., (Negligence Actions by Police Officers and Firefighters: A Need for a Professional Rescuers Rule), California Law Review, Vol.66, Iss.3, Article 4, 1978.