MARION, Ohio (AP) -- Two Ohio men honored as heroes for their actions after a 2009 car crash are now suing the woman they rescued from a burning vehicle.

The Columbus Dispatch reports the suit filed in central Ohio's Marion County by David Kelly and Mark Kincaid claims Theresa Tanner was at fault and that saving her left the men with disabling injuries. They're each seeking upwards of $25,000 in damages.

Kelly tells the newspaper (http://bit.ly/poAg4a ) the smoke and fire did so much damage to his lungs that he can no longer carry a laundry basket upstairs in his home. He says he saw hair melting on Tanner's head and is haunted by those memories.

Court records don't list an attorney for Tanner. Her husband told the Dispatch the family isn't commenting.

ernest_t_bass;848106 wrote:It's Marion, OH. What do you expect? That place is trash.

(queue Sage)

In the USA, the rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that if a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that victim. This doctrine was originally created in case law by Wagner v. International Railway[1], 232 N.Y. 176 (1926), in which Justice Cardozo stated "Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief [...] The emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had."

Essentially it means that the rescuer can recover damages from a defendant when the rescuer is injured rescuing someone. The defendant is usually negligent in causing the accident to occur. Other cases have occurred where the plaintiff is injured rescuing the defendant and is able to collect damages.

In Wagner v. International Railway, riders on the defendant's trains were allowed to walk between cars while the train was moving. In one incident, a rider fell through the cars. The plaintiff, trying to help the fallen rider, was injured himself. The court found the defendant liable because of negligence to allow riders to walk between cars while the train was moving.

Essentially, in its pure form the Rescue Doctrine boils down to 4 main elements - all of which must be met in order to bring it to bear for the person asserting its privilege.

1. There must be peril or the appearance of peril to a third party, caused by the defendant.
2. That peril or appearance of peril must be imminent
3. A reasonable person would recognize the peril or appearance of peril and the plaintiff must also have actually recognized it.
4. The plaintiff must have exercised reasonable care in effecting the rescue.

Glory Days;848218 wrote:I read in another article the woman was attempting suicide.

ccrunner609;848200 wrote:So disabled that they are asking for $25,000? Must not be too disabled.

Heretic;848225 wrote:Then, shouldn't she be suing them?

Heretic;848225 wrote:Then, shouldn't she be suing them?

WebFire;848102 wrote:Um...ok? You rescue someone from a burning vehicle and then you sue her? What the fuck is wrong with people?

Kelly tells the newspaper (http://bit.ly/poAg4a ) the smoke and fire did so much damage to his lungs that he can no longer carry a laundry basket upstairs in his home. He says he saw hair melting on Tanner's head and is haunted by those memories.

Cat Food Flambe';848513 wrote:What were the circumstances behind the accident itself? If she were, say, driving around with a .25 BAC and lost control of the vehicle as a result, she's fair game.

Just sayin'...