Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.6-15

The defendant in this case has asserted the defense of comparative negligence. This defense

asserts that the plaintiff's injuries were caused, either in part or in whole, by the plaintiff's own

negligent conduct. When viewing the plaintiff's conduct, you may consider a doctrine of law

known as the rescue doctrine. The rescue doctrine states that it is not negligence to expose

oneself to danger in a reasonable effort to save another person from harm.

To determine whether the conduct of the plaintiff falls within the rescue doctrine, you must

consider the evidence and decide whether the plaintiff made a reasonable effort to save <insert

the name of the appropriate person>. In determining whether the actions of the plaintiff were

reasonable, you should judge the conduct in light of the existing circumstances. The question is

not whether the conduct was that of a prudent person under ordinary circumstances but whether

the conduct was that of an ordinarily prudent person in an emergency. In an emergency, the

conduct of a person attempting a rescue is not to be judged by what one would do when there

was time for cool deliberation but by what a reasonable person would do in that emergency.

If you find that the plaintiff was reasonably faced with an emergency in which there was fear for

the safety of another, and that the plaintiff made a reasonable effort to save <insert the name of

the appropriate person> from harm, then the plaintiff would not be negligent.

If you find that the plaintiff's efforts to rescue were not reasonable under the circumstances, then

the plaintiff was negligent and the principles of comparative negligence, as I will explain them to

you, will apply.