<Table> <Tr> <Td> "Danger invites rescue . The cry of distress is the summons to relief . The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind in tracing conduct to its consequences . It recognises them as normal . It places their efforts within the range of the natural and probable . The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer ." </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td> Cardozo J, Wagner v International Railway Co (1921) 133 NE 437, 232 NY 176 </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> "Danger invites rescue . The cry of distress is the summons to relief . The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind in tracing conduct to its consequences . It recognises them as normal . It places their efforts within the range of the natural and probable . The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer ." </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td> Cardozo J, Wagner v International Railway Co (1921) 133 NE 437, 232 NY 176 </Td> </Tr> <P> It has been established at common law that those who attempt rescue are owed a duty of care by those who create dangerous situations, in which it is foreseeable rescuers may intervene . This duty can apply to professional rescuers--such as doctors or lifeguards--as much as ordinary individuals, and may even apply where the rescuer engages in a careless or reckless rescue attempt . The basis for this liability was first recognised in Haynes v Harwood . Here, a child who threw a stone at a horse, causing it to bolt, was liable to a policeman who attempted to stop it subsequently, and was injured . The duty was confirmed in the later case of Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd, with Wilmer LJ stating that: </P>

Which of the following is not part of the employer's common law duty of care towards employees