I mean there is the old case of the man who rescues the child from the train tracks only to be hit himself. The man then sued the train company for his injuries, and the train company said, “assumption of risk.” And the courts said, “are you kidding us? Danger invites rescue.” So they said that the train company was liable to the man.

Really if you disagree with that old decision, then you are close to saying that a person should never, ever recover for tort.

The only difference here is that he is holding the person who put themselves in danger for the costs incurred in saving them from it. Which actually sounds better, not worse. Did his rescuer do anything wrong? So then why should he suffer? Shouldn’t the guy who created this situation be the one who suffers?

Really, I see nothing wrong with this suit.