A 23-year-old man who intervened to save a child from a potentially fatal fall from a tenth-floor stairwell now faces a civil lawsuit filed by the very family he helped. The case, which has drawn widespread attention online, raises significant questions about the legal protections afforded to bystanders who act in emergencies.
Surveillance footage from the building captured the moment David Collins, walking down a stairwell, noticed an 8-year-old girl climbing over a railing on the tenth floor.
Recognizing the immediate danger, he reached out and caught her before she could fall. First responders who later arrived at the scene stated that a fall from that height would almost certainly have been fatal had she not been caught.
The intervention, however, came at a physical cost. As a result of the catch, the girl sustained multiple fractures to her leg and arm. Collins remained at the scene after catching her, calling 911 and staying with the child to keep her calm until paramedics arrived. She was transported for emergency treatment and survived.
Days after the incident, the girl’s mother, Amanda Collins, filed a civil lawsuit against David Collins seeking $800,000 in medical compensation. The plaintiff alleges that the manner in which he caught her child was improper and directly caused the fractures sustained during the rescue.
The lawsuit centers on a claim of reckless rescue, a legal theory arguing that while the intent to help may have been present, the execution of that help fell below a reasonable standard of care. The plaintiff contends that the fractures were not inevitable and that a more careful approach could have prevented the injuries.
David Collins’ legal team has pushed back firmly against those claims. His attorney argues that given the circumstances, with a child seconds away from a freefall of ten stories, there was no viable alternative course of action available. The defense maintains that Collins acted in good faith and that his conduct falls squarely within protections provided under Good Samaritan laws.
Good Samaritan statutes, which exist in all fifty U.S. states, are designed to protect individuals who voluntarily assist others in emergency situations from civil liability. The specific scope of those protections, however, varies by jurisdiction.
Some states extend protection broadly to any good faith emergency intervention, while others limit protections based on the rescuer’s level of training or the nature of the aid provided.
The key legal question before the court is whether Collins’ actions constituted a reasonable response to an imminent emergency or whether the manner of the rescue introduced unnecessary harm. Defense attorneys are expected to argue that the fractures were an unavoidable consequence of stopping a fall in progress, not evidence of negligence.
The outcome of this case may carry broader implications for how Good Samaritan protections are interpreted in scenarios involving physical intervention. Legal analysts note that rulings in cases of this nature can influence whether bystanders feel legally safe to act during emergencies, a consideration with significant public interest implications.
As the case remains ongoing, no ruling has been issued. The court will need to weigh the plaintiff’s medical claims against the defense’s argument that the emergency circumstances left Collins with no meaningful choice. Watch the full video below.
