An anchor comes with a chain which might be useful for a drowning man who has nothing else to hang onto.
Sometimes you have to think fast and clearly. It might get complicated though if you accidently hit the drowner on the head with the anchor.
This is not directed personally at runcible spoon but rather at anyone out there who has an inflated sense of the value of material goods and a deflated sense of the value of human life.
I don’t want to get sued either, but if I ever have to face this dilemma I would not even think about it. Potential loss of all my worldly assets is not the first thing that enters my mind in an emergency. I really don’t think it would enter my mind at all.
I’m no angel, in fact I can be quite the misanthrope, but seriously-- my money or their life? What kind of a choice is that? There wouldn’t even be any choosing or thinking. Failing the presence of qualified rescuers, I would immediately act to help the person in need with precisely the “reptile brain” instincts that would compel me to yank my hand off of a burning-hot stove.
I know people are really attached to their 50" plasma screen HDTVs, European vacations (6 cities in 5 days!) and sending their daughters to some horsey boarding school (now with Intelligent Design!) but c’mon, WWJD?
And American selfish pricks.
I don’t think that is fair or called for.
In any case, I believe it is good that people are responsible for their actions. A lot of people are ignorant idiots and it is better if they think twice before acting and that they be held responsible for their actions if the act idiotically and cause damage unnecessarily.
Every day we see people doing the most dangerious and idiotic things. It is not a good ide to give them a free pass if they do something stupid only because they were trying to help.
Bingo. And, naturally, this is the part that the vile industry of plunder that is our legal system studiously ignores. They steal most of my life savings and then I’m found innocent. Witch hunt, anyone? Well I have a simple solution at least in this case. I’m never going to California again.
Let’s just break that down a little, shall we? I used to know a guy who lost a lawsuit from a failed business venture. You don’t get sued for 10 bucks, it was more like a million. At the age of 55 he was too old to ever have a hope of paying it off. Whenever he would get a job, the feds would take so much of his wages that he didn’t have enough left to pay rent even on a shack. His wife left him and his kids ended up on the street. His younger daughter got pimped and worked as a whore for awhile. At one point he had a home in a middle class neighborhood. Last I heard he was living in an old school bus out in the sticks and getting by on food stamps. This time of year it’s freakin cold out there. If he ever gets sick, he’s going to die. That is what the end of his road looks like.
Is the guy you saved going to be there to help you when you get old? No, he will slap you on the back and say 'Gee thanks pal." Unless he gets a chance to sue, in which case he will be living on your life savings while you frikkin starve. That’s reality. It’s not about a goddam TV, Einstein. The legal system is a heartless machine.
The other day I stopped at an accident on the freeway. Some guy decided to try and haul a 35 foot travel trailer up a steep hill in the snow during a wind storm. Needless to say, he got blown off the road. As it happened there were no injuries and I continued on my way when the cops got there.
But let’s just say he had gotten hurt. Should I roll the dice with my future because this guy is dumb enough to tow a billboard that weighs twice as much as his vehicle during a blizzard? And now the law says that every action I take during an emergency can be second guessed and litigated. Fuck that, I’m outta here.
I’m feeling a lot less snarky this morning than last night. So I want to amend my black-or-white, yes-or-no thinking a little and say that while for me, aiding the person in need is far more important than any of my material goods, I can understand that for some other folks the potential damage done by a serious lawsuit might be a mitigating factor.
And, I will add that if people really could (and did) go around with MedAlert style bracelets that stated clearly either that they wanted NO HELP from anyone who wasn’t a trained professional, or that they would sue you if you so much as mussed their hair, then I would not help them (or I would think twice about it).
Should aid be rendered to lawyers? I think everybody should be required to sign a release form, before being helped.
That would cut down on thse lawsuits.
Unnnnhhhh OK, just who gets to decide after the fact, what was reasonable? Who gets to decide if the emergency aid was correct enough or perfect enough? Sorry, but there are sue happy people and ambulance chasers out there. Like I said earlier, I tend to want to help … but if you (the victim) are going to turn on me later, you can just stay as you are - with no help - and die. It’s cold, it’s harsh, its the truth.
Anecdote: I have a family member who is still alive because of CPR performed by a bystander.
I would say yes expect in the most extreme cases of unreasonableness bordering criminal behaviour. Because I think that such a law is beneficial, that such a case is going to deter people from rendering help, and that the fact that a well-intended idiot is inevitably going to do more harm than good from time to time is an acceptable price to pay.
By the way, it would be a good thing to make basic rescue training mandatory for everybody, say, in high school. It would significantly rise the number of people able to help and decrease the number of people doing something idiotic or dangerous when they try to help.
“What to do when faced with a car accident” should be drilled in everybody’s mind from an early age. And at the the very least before they’re allowed to operate a vehicle.
Though of course, some people will be happy to sue if they have a chance. But besides people, I would mention that insurers are almost always involved. And those won’t have the slightest issue suing anybody in view if they think they have a legal leg to stand on, and a shot at recovering a couple hundred thousand dollars from a good Samaritan.
Good questions. I’d say they might best be answered by a judge/jury.
Other than performing a sobriety testing, the police officer’s report would most likely be hearsay. Most likely he witnessed neither the drinking before hand, the accident, nor the “rescue.”
Here’s another couple of questions. Did the “rescuer” act because she knew of the good sam law? A lot of folk seem to assume that the existence of the law causes a great many people to act differently than they might have otherwise. That may well be the case, but I would be interested in whether any evidence backs that up. My suspicion is that people who are the kind to help would help whether or not they knew of such a law/lawsuit. Same with those who would not help. I doubt they are likely to change their stripes just because they read about a new law being passed.
Also, a lot of people seem to be presuming that on balance, more people are better off because of the efforts of bystanders than if people instead had simply called for the appropriate emergency personnel. Again, that may be the case, but I’m not sure I would accept it without any statistical support. Would be interesting to see what - if anything - was submitted when the law was proposed. My suspicion is that if you remove instances of trained medical personnel providing assistance, you woul dend up with a pretty small number of cases in which an untrained bystander provides much of any real relief. IMO you would also need to figure in situations in which the good sam - however well intentioned - caused more harm than good.
My WAG is that the good sam act was passed after some outrageous verdict where a good sam was sued.
The thing I was trying to point out is that there’s a lot of speculating going on over precious little info. She’s been called a drunk, despite the fact that the articles only mention that “they” (as in the group) had been out drinking. It’s awfully presumptuous and unfortunate for this woman to be on public trial like that based on what the victim is claiming. Simply because she tried to offer assistance as society actually encourages. I’m not willing to jump on board smearing her before the fact.
Suffice it to say, if she had acted criminally, then I would more than likely support a civil suit. Perhaps that ought to be the real test.
I think people will change their stripes once they hear endless media reports about civil lawsuits with multi-million dollar pricetags against good sams.Gee, who really want to put themselves on the line for that kind of thanks?
It sounds cold but it doesn’t take a whole lot for human beings to figure that it’s not their problem, there’s nothing they could change, or any other easy justification for not acting when it puts them in a tenuous position. They’ll stand there (or worse, leave) expecting someone else to jump in and do what needs to be done. We are all not hero class. Some of us are just normal compassionate though practical people struggling to make a meager living. How many of these people believe we live in an overly litigious society (raises hand) and that’s NOT a good thing?
I think you’d be right. And it would be a huge mistake to return to that situation.
Well, I’d favor a situation where well-intentioned and competent good sams are insulated from liability. But it seems undesireable to me that someone should be allowed to act negligently, and not be responsible for the harm they cause. Perhaps a “good sam” theory might be more applicable as an affirmative defense to charges of negligence, rather than a complete bar to action.
I’m no expert in PI litigation or negligence law, but my understanding is that in terms of legal negligence you generally need not intend to cause damage that resulted from your actions.
It’s not like the victim was walking in the park and was tackled because a do-gooder thought an alien spaceship was going to land on her or a tree might fall on her.
Who is the absolute judge of what is an emergency situation from which one needs rescuing? Do you want potential good samaritans to follow some kind of legally prescribed field index, that they read carefully while the victim burns?
Fine, sue me for my errant attempt to rescue you; but pardon me if I later see you trapped in a burning car and carry on my way, shaking my head.
Someone might have already brought this point up, but I’m wondering how difficult it’s going to be to determine whether the paralyzing injury was a result of the accident or a result of the extrication. Along those lines, it’s not been mentioned whether the accident victim is also suing the driver of the car for negligence (was s/he drinking or otherwise impaired) for “losing control?” What caused the loss of control and is there some potential liability for the city for maintenance issues? So many questions, but all the attention is focused on the Good Sam. I wonder why that is.
The Boys Scouts of America have filed a brief on this, and it is an interesting read. It references the applicable laws, and discusses why this is a bad thing. Poorly scanned .pdf is here:
http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Good%20Samaritan%20Brief.pdf
I don’t agree with that, but I do agree it makes the Samaritan’s claim that she thought an explosion was imminent pretty tenuous.
Cars just don’t explode like in the movies. Well, not as often.
However, the blame here is on the legilature for not making their intent clear, if they intended to shield nonprofessionals too.
Going only on media reports only, different writers are saying different things. This article linked above said she thought the car was going to “catch fire,” but none of the others saw an “imminent explosion.” Are those the reporter’s words or “the others’?” Fire can be just as dangerous as without an explosion and it’s fair to suppose that the writers are being imprecise in their reporting.
What do the court papers actually say?