Cited by

DISCUSSION ¶9 “We review the grant of summary judgment de novo and view the evidence in the light most favorable to [the Association], the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 6 (2006).

Doing so is consistent with our embracing the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 32, the corollary to Third Restatement § 35, ¶¶ 7-9, 129 11 CRAMER V. STARR (MUNGUIA/BEJARANO) Opinion of the Court P.3d 937, 939 (2006) (adopting the “rescue doctrine” set forth in Third Restatement § 32 and noting that “injury to a rescuer is a foreseeable result of the or

The trial court agreed, P.3d 937 (2006).

¶ 7 “The rescue doctrine allows an injured rescuer to recover damages from the person whose negligence created the need for the rescue.” ¶ 7 , see also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical & Emotional Harm § 32 (2010) (“[I]f an actor’s tortious conduct imperils another[,] the scope of the actor’s liability includes any harm to a person resulting from that person’s efforts to aid or to protect the impe

And, we view the facts “in the light most favorable to [Jennings/MeCallum], the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” -17, ¶ 6 , -39 (2006) (citing Duncan v. Scottsdale Med.