{"media":{"type":{"params":{"contentName":"Image","decorative":false},"library":"H5P.Image 1.1","subContentId":"ae55089d-f568-41de-89b5-2b85fadb9560","metadata":{"contentType":"Image","license":"U","title":"Untitled Image"}},"disableImageZooming":false},"answers":[{"correct":false,"tipsAndFeedback":{"chosenFeedback":"

Incorrect. On these facts, it appears that the objective perspective is likelier to be that peril is imminent, so the rescuer\u2019s subjective view of the lack of imminence will not be a bar. Put another way, the rescuer\u2019s subjective<\/em> view of what was reasonable was not relevant to the question of the reasonableness of the rescue, which is measured objectively<\/em> (and seems satisfied here since every other entity mentioned in the hypothetical does<\/em> think the peril is imminent and does fear the consequences, absent a rescue). The fact that the rescuer sustained injuries does not suggest that the conduct was unreasonable, and the only inferences we can draw about that conduct are that the rescuer \u201cowned equipment which made it reasonable to help.\u201d The rescue doctrine is likely to apply.<\/div>\n","tip":"","notChosenFeedback":""},"text":"
A situation of peril appeared on property owned by D. The rescuer did not believe it was imminent, but D, D\u2019s neighbors, tourists who had gathered to observe it, and a local journalist all began commenting and tweeting that it was in fact imminent, and expressing increasing fear that nobody was available to help. Because the rescuer owned equipment which made it reasonable to help, the rescuer shrugged and did so. The rescuer prevented the peril from causing harm to others, but sustained injuries in doing so.<\/div>\n"},{"correct":false,"tipsAndFeedback":{"chosenFeedback":"
Incorrect. Even though \u201cthe next 72 hours\u201d would not ordinarily satisfy the imminent peril requirement, the test is fact-sensitive. In this context, harm that is 72 hours away with no means of getting help until well after 72 hours makes the appearance of the peril more pressing, and increases the wisdom of interpreting the peril as imminent. Because under these facts<\/em>, anyway, the rescue options are limited, the danger and risk of possible loss of life are implicitly great, and the emergent situation seems likely to unfold during a multi-day crisis, the imminence requirement would need to be contextualized. The rescue doctrine is likely to apply.<\/div>\n","tip":"","notChosenFeedback":""},"text":"
A situation of peril appeared on an isolated research vessel in the ocean, far from any means of assistance, and a week away from the next possible land destination. The situation seemed likely to result in chaos within the next 72 hours. The rescuer acted reasonably, but immediately, upon learning of the peril.<\/div>\n"},{"correct":false,"tipsAndFeedback":{"chosenFeedback":"
Incorrect. Under Roberts v. Louisiana<\/em>, the conduct of a blind person in familiar circumstances is not per se unreasonable just because that person chooses to be without a cane (or neglects to use a cane). Nothing in the fact pattern suggests that the conduct was otherwise unreasonable, and the causal nexus is also missing here: it is unclear what caused the injury, except that \u201cdanger invited rescue\u201d and the person available was a blind person. That he failed to use his cane is not, without more, a breach of conduct. The rescue doctrine is likely to apply.<\/div>\n","tip":"","notChosenFeedback":""},"text":"
A situation of peril appeared and a blind man, without his cane, but fairly familiar with his surroundings, correctly perceived that there was imminent peril to himself and others. He conducted a rescue and was injured.<\/div>\n"},{"correct":true,"tipsAndFeedback":{"chosenFeedback":"
Correct. Although the rescuer\u2019s mission was accomplished, that\u2019s not what is being measured. It may seem counterintuitive or unfair, but the fact that they got lucky and it all worked out (or that they were heroic) does not make it reasonable for them to have engaged in risky conduct. The rescuer may still be able to recover against the defendant but without the benefits accorded by application of the rescue doctrine.<\/div>\n","tip":"","notChosenFeedback":""},"text":"
A situation of imminent peril appeared, and a rescuer behaved unreasonably under the emergent circumstances, ultimately accomplishing the rescue and saving the day; many people\u2019s lives were saved, but in the process, the rescuer sustained great injury.<\/div>\n"}],"overallFeedback":[{"from":0,"to":100}],"behaviour":{"enableRetry":true,"enableSolutionsButton":true,"enableCheckButton":true,"type":"auto","singlePoint":false,"randomAnswers":false,"showSolutionsRequiresInput":true,"confirmCheckDialog":false,"confirmRetryDialog":false,"autoCheck":false,"passPercentage":100,"showScorePoints":true},"UI":{"checkAnswerButton":"Check","showSolutionButton":"Show solution","tryAgainButton":"Retry","tipsLabel":"Show tip","scoreBarLabel":"You got :num out of :total points","tipAvailable":"Tip available","feedbackAvailable":"Feedback available","readFeedback":"Read feedback","wrongAnswer":"Wrong answer","correctAnswer":"Correct answer","shouldCheck":"Should have been checked","shouldNotCheck":"Should not have been checked","noInput":"Please answer before viewing the solution","a11yCheck":"Check the answers. The responses will be marked as correct, incorrect, or unanswered.","a11yShowSolution":"Show the solution. The task will be marked with its correct solution.","a11yRetry":"Retry the task. Reset all responses and start the task over again.","submitAnswerButton":"Submit"},"confirmCheck":{"header":"Finish ?","body":"Are you sure you wish to finish ?","cancelLabel":"Cancel","confirmLabel":"Finish"},"confirmRetry":{"header":"Retry ?","body":"Are you sure you wish to retry ?","cancelLabel":"Cancel","confirmLabel":"Confirm"},"question":"
Options<\/p>\n"}

Activity Preview

Shared By

Metadata

Title

Subject

License

License Attribution

H5P Type

Accessibility

Shared On

Last Updated

Shared in Library

H5P ID

Adapt ID