Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. is the rare case where a court identifies a fundamental and well-defined public policy effectively out of thin air. That "Gardner's discharge for leaving the truck and saving a woman from an imminent life threatening situation violates the public policy encouraging such heroic conduct" is not linked to a constitutional provision, statute, or anything else.  The concurrence accepts the public policy only under the specific facts of the case, noting that it "defies what I believe is true about human nature that anyone would be willing to watch a person die in order to comply with a company safety rule," while the dissent argues that NOT engaging in heroic conduct to intervene in a life threatening situation (a la the company's strict work rule) is, if anything, a better public policy. 

If you were on the Washington Supreme Court hearing the case, where would you fall, and especially WHY? Is a policy of heroic conduct when confronted with a third-party's imminent life-threatening harm fundamental? Is it well-defined? Or maybe it is, as the dissent suggests, not even for the public good? Or perhaps you think it may be all three of those things but as a matter of judicial policy you do not want judges meddling with the at-will rule?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

As a judge on the Washington Supreme Court hearing the case of Gardner v Loomis Armored Inc my decis... View the full answer