McCarter v. Davis
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102399 (2014)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
John Davis (defendant) lost control of his car, which flipped over and ended up on the highway median. Katherine McCarter (plaintiff), who had been driving behind Davis, pulled over to the left shoulder. Other cars pulled over behind McCarter and on the other side of the road. Daniel and Tara Rozum (the Rozums), who had not seen the accident, pulled over on the other side of the road. The Rozums did not intend to cross the highway to get to the accident scene. Tara got out of the car and walked as far away from the traffic lane as possible to ask another driver if 911 had been called. If 911 had not been called, Tara intended to return to her car and make the call. At the same time, in response to another driver’s instruction, McCarter started to move to the other side of the highway. As McCarter’s car crossed the highway, it was hit by another car, causing McCarter’s car to hit Tara. The Rozums sued McCarter for Tara’s injuries. McCarter settled the claims and filed an action against Davis seeking contribution for monies McCarter paid to settle the Rozums’ claims. Davis moved for summary judgment, arguing that the rescue doctrine was not applicable and that his negligence was not a proximate cause of Tara’s injuries.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mummert III, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.