Rescuer Doctrine and Security for Costs
The complex interplay between law, morality, and human tragedy takes center stage in our latest episode examining three compelling legal cases that highlight how our justice system navigates competing interests.
We begin by exploring the “rescuer doctrine” – a legal principle establishing that if someone’s negligence creates a dangerous situation, they can be liable for injuries sustained by those who attempt to help. This emerged in a heartrending case involving a woman who rushed to save a person whose wheelchair became stuck on railway tracks as a train approached. Despite her heroic efforts, she couldn’t free the wheelchair in time, resulting in the death of the wheelchair user and injuries to herself. The railway company’s attempts to avoid a jury trial were rejected by the judge, allowing this sympathetic rescuer to have her day in court.
The tension between access to justice and financial realities takes shape in our second case, where a woman with limited means sought to appeal the dismissal of her medical malpractice claim. When the doctor requested she provide $5,000 security for potential legal costs, the court faced a dilemma: demanding full security might deny her right to appeal, while waiving it entirely would unfairly burden the doctor with legal expenses for what appeared to be a weak claim. The Court of Appeal struck a compromise, requiring just $1,000 security and extending the payment deadline – demonstrating how judges must sometimes find a middle ground when principles collide.
Finally, we delve into the emotionally charged issue of faith-based hospitals refusing to provide medical assistance in dying. When a terminal cancer patient had to be transferred from St. Paul’s Hospital for MAID services, causing her additional suffering, it sparked litigation questioning whether religious exemptions can override patient rights. The case has attracted numerous interveners representing various perspectives, revealing how our courts manage cases with broad societal implications.
Have you encountered situations where competing rights created difficult legal questions? Share your thoughts and join our conversation about how the justice system balances competing interests.
Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 12:30 p.m. It’s also available on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.