Seriously people? Yes, someone should be financially punished for having a mental disorder. :rolleyes: x 1000.
And don’t try to argue that someone who tried to kill themselves after an argument doesn’t have a mental disorder. Emotional pain that deep is itself a mental disorder.
As for the people: there is no obligation for someone you help to actually want your help. To assert so is absurd. To assert so because you just found out the woman had a mental disorder? I don’t really believe in hell, but, for that behavior, I wish I did.
This is why I shouldn’t hit submit right away when dealing with the subject of mental illness. I tried to edit, but it took too long.
Still, I find it morally objectionable that people are finding sympathy for the people who only wanted to help if they get praise out of it. Helping should be about helping. The woman was going to end her life over something stupid. You stopped her. Be happy.
Okay, you’re human. It’s okay to be a bit upset. But don’t take it out on the suicidally depressed.
No, you should have to pay compensation if your actions cause injuries to others, either through intent or reckless endangerment. The mental status behind it, though tragic, is not an excuse unless it prevents her from knowing right from wrong. It did not do so in this case, and by purposely crashing into the bridge guardrail she recklessly endangered the safety of fellow motorists.
Extremely warped way of phrasing it, and inaccurate. The case here is that someone deliberately did something dangerous and created a hazard that caused injury to others who were not obligated to act, but acted very reasonably nonetheless. To say “hey, they didn’t have to help” is tantamount to suggesting that the smarter course of action would have been to do nothing and let her die in that fire. In retrospect, knowing the facts, I’d agree. But they didn’t know that at the time, and now they’re paying for it.
Wether or not she’s insured or not, or deliberately crashed or not, is irrelevant.
The right thing for passersby to do is to render aid. If this causes them loss or damage, she’s liable for this. If it goes any other way, it may adversely affect people’s willingness to help in the future, but it is as much a moral issue.
Why should the good samaritans pay for the damage or loss they incurred? That’s just not right.
It’s absolutely another facet of the Good Samaritan concept. Good Samaritan is meant to protect bystanders who might otherwise have to weigh the risks of helping someone else and might possibly decide not to. “I might hurt myself and be financially destitute because of it” is just as valid a reason not to help as “I might accidentally injure the victim or damage his property and be sued for it.”
So, yeah. I hope it’s her insurance company who pays out instead of her, but I would really rather not see a court decide that injury occurring while aiding another person will not be recompensed.
I don’t think anyone said that. I certainly didn’t. She should be held financially responsible for the damages she causes, though. If a mental disorder had caused her to vandalize a person’s car, would you tell the owner “tough luck, she’s not responsible to repair the damage because she suffers a mental disorder?” She caused the problem, whether because of a mental disorder or not. The disorder itself is irrelevant.
Certainly, and as far as I know recognized as such by professionals.
I’m having trouble parsing this statement. Are you arguing that helping someone in a deadly situation is not a reasonable reaction for a bystander? Are you saying the bystanders who were injured rescuing her deserve to go to hell?
They don’t want praise, they want her to pay their considerable medical bills.
Mental issue or no mental issue, if you fuck someone over because you acted like a dumb ass, you should pay to help them out. No, she doesn’t need to buy them each a Lambo, and a year’s worth of hookers and blow, but the amount of money they’re asking for is trivial when you consider the very real physical injuries they sustained trying to help her.
How do you figure that her mental status didn’t prevent her from knowing right from wrong? She drove into an overpass, her entire sense of right and wrong was significantly skewed.
I see the criminal that started they chain of events that led to the accident and the women who was saved by the Samaritans as two separate entities. The fact that they were the same person shouldn’t excuse the liability. If her husband cut her break lines to start the chain of events, I would feel that he was liable. Her trying to kill herself makes her liable.
