"OK, Princess, you'll get my bill for this rescue in five to seven business days."

On March 11, 2009, Mark Kinkaid and David Kelley were riding in Kinkaid’s truck when they saw a detached bumper, headlights and all, lying in the middle of Rt. 23.  Smoke was rising up from the highway embankment,  and the two men concluded that someone was in trouble. The truck stopped, and they got out, hopped a barbed-wire fence, made their way down the steep highway embankment, where they saw a flaming Hummer. Theresa Tanner was trapped inside, screaming for help. They forced their way into the vehicle, pried a door open and pulled Tanner out. She was injured and burned, but after weeks in intensive care, survived.

Now Kinkaid and David Kelley are suing Tanner, claiming that the crash was her fault and that she is liable for the injuries they sustained in rescuing her. They have filed a lawsuit asking for damages of at least $25,000 each. “All I know is that I am not the same man I used to be,” says Kelley, a 39-year-old truck driver and father of five, who says the heavy smoke and fire that day damaged his lungs so that he can’t carry a laundry basket up the three flights of stairs in his home.

The law provides a rationale for such a lawsuit. “The precedent is clear: danger invites rescue … and if you’ve acted recklessly or negligently and someone gets hurt rescuing you, you could be in trouble,” says Stan Darling, a tort law specialist. A well-established principle known as “the Rescue Doctrine” holds that if someone is in peril because of their own negligence or recklessness, an injured rescuer can recover damages if he acted reasonably and can prove that his injuries were caused by the rescue attempt.

That’s the law, however. This is ethics, and your Ethics Quiz today is:

Is it ethical for a rescuer to sue the person he rescued?

This incident gave me the opportunity to consult with myself, a scary thing indeed. In 2007, I wrote about the Mad River Ski Resort, which sent a skier who had required rescue a $900 bill. I didn’t remember what I had written about the incident, and but it turned out that 2007 Jack was as conflicted about this issue as I am:

“…There are laws in some states that permit a voluntary rescuer to sue the object of his or her rescue effort if it results in an injury to the rescuer, on the theory that the victim put the rescuer in peril by negligently getting in a situation that inspired a rescue. I salute the enterprise of the creative personal injury lawyer who first thought that one up, but it bothers me for the same reason as the ski resort’s bill: aren’t human beings supposed to want to rescue each other? This should be a pure Golden Rule situation: we rescue others because we would want them to rescue us, and to do it because it’s the right thing to do… It doesn’t seem right, somehow. It’s supposed to work this way: victim puts self in mortal in peril, rescuer saves him or her, grateful victim offers reward, noble rescuer turns it down and walks into the sunset; victim sighs in gratitude.

“I can’t say it’s unethical to demand payment for a rescue, but it has to be the least admirable way of doing a good deed imaginable.”

That’s still the way I feel. I note, however, that cagey 2007 Jack added that the grateful victim should offer a reward. Did Tanner offer to pay for her rescuers’ hospital bills, or did she just say “thanks!” and wave goodbye? A rescued victim should not assume that a rescue is a gift; we don’t want a society where rescuing a fellow human being in peril is optional, do we? Rescue should be an ethical obligation, and if it is an obligation, the victim has an obligation too: either compensate the rescuer for what he gives up to save her, or offer to do so. I assume, if there is a lawsuit now, that Tanner didn’t make the offer.

A rescue can be a gift, and as 2007 Jack implied, it is noble, honorable and kind to make it so. We do not, however, say that it is unethical not to be exemplary.

Apparently Kinkaid and Kelley decided to sue after learning recently that Theresa Tanner’s accident was not an accident at all, but a failed suicide attempt. I’m not impressed with their logic or powers of empathy. A woman who tries to kill herself out of depression, desperation or mental illness is no less worthy of rescue than a drunk driver, a joy-riding teen, an elderly driver who should not be on the road, or someone who took a turn too fast. The criteria for deserving rescue is humanity, not comparative virtue.

Nonetheless, Kinkaid and Kelley have a right to compensation, and I won’t say that it is wrong for them to seek it. Tanner still got a good deal, although I smell a creative counter-suit in which she sues them for forcing her to live the horrible life she was trying to escape. Tanner conduct was responsible for their injuries, and it isn’t unethical to for her rescuers to insist that she pay for them.

It isn’t admirable, though, and neither I nor 2007 Jack would do it.