Darth Avlectus Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Yeah, I'm referring to a ruling as of late that may lead to a new law. A man wanting to help a crash victim out of her car accidentally injured her and made her a paraplegic. She has sued him. Case was ruled in her favor I heard. Which, needless to say, is WHY they tell you to leave rescue to the professionals. I suppose if the woman was not in any mortal danger that, yes, the man should have just stayed there with her and not forced the issue. Still, he was only trying to help. I know there are punishments out there for failing to assist in an emergency but do we need a law telling us we can't help out someone in danger? This is a bit of a dilemma. Contradicting laws. I'd hate for there to be two contrary laws and for it to be decided by an arbitrary (and usually very grim) district attorney. Damned because you helped. Damned because you didn't. I can just picture a DA saying to someone "I can decide that you'll get sued either way--because I said so. I'm the DA and you have nothing to say in the matter." I'll admit, I have it in for DAs a little bit. Nothing personal though. What do you think about this unfortunate turn of events and its implications??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 A man wanting to help a crash victim out of her car accidentally injured her and made her a paraplegic. She has sued him. Case was ruled in her favor I heard. Well, if you're not trained and you make a stupid mistake that cost the woman the use of her legs when there was no imminent danger, you deserve to be sued. Oh, and good source, by the way. Which, needless to say, is WHY they tell you to leave rescue to the professionals. I suppose if the woman was not in any mortal danger that, yes, the man should have just stayed there with her and not forced the issue. Still, he was only trying to help. If there were any imminent danger that resulted in him saving her life, the case would not have been ruled in her favor. Basically, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I know there are punishments out there for failing to assist in an emergency but do we need a law telling us we can't help out someone in danger? This is a bit of a dilemma. Contradicting laws. I'd hate for there to be two contrary laws and for it to be decided by an arbitrary (and usually very grim) district attorney. Wow, way to stereotype. If you're trained (such as a Lifeguard or First Aid Certification like I have) and you help someone, then the Good Samaritan Law protects you from liability. And I'd also like to see a source where there's a punishment for failing to assist. AFAIK, there's no penalty for not helping someone, unless you have a special case (such as if you are a fireman, or an EMT). What do you think about this unfortunate turn of events and its implications??? I think you should provide an adequate source because the way you presented it seems to have factual inaccuracies. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordOfTheFish Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity but do we need a law telling us we can't help out someone in danger? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 No. If you're a stupid person who causes harm, then I'd wager yes. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Well, if you're not trained and you make a stupid mistake that cost the woman the use of her legs when there was no imminent danger, you deserve to be sued. Oh, and good source, by the way. [/Quote] NBC nightly news, and right now (6:30pm pdt 12/21/08) Yahoo news. I'm not debating that much. However the implications of this ruling do make me wonder if laws will be enacted and to what degree. If there were any imminent danger that resulted in him saving her life, the case would not have been ruled in her favor. Basically, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." [/Quote] Yeah, you're telling me. EDIT: Hmm. Apparently the failure to assist thing is more a reasoning for a case of neglect--and inspired by your acute responses I have found out the officer who told me that was exaggerating based around ambiguously written regional laws regarding neglect. I ought to send him to you to tear him a new one, EW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 She has a right to sue in my opinion. the guy wasn't trained and he should have just left her where she was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 She has a right to sue in my opinion. the guy wasn't trained and he should have just left her where she was Well your hardly going to be kissing him for leaving you a paraplegic are you. With regards good Samaritans, just because you are attempting help, doesn't mean you shouldn't get it, if you did something stupid. Besides first aid is basically common sense, so if you do get it wrong, then you deserve to be sued for being stupid. e.g. if someone has a neck injury and is in pain, and there is no immediate reason to move them, and you can wait for medical staff - why move them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Buttercrust Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 She has a right to sue in my opinion. the guy wasn't trained and he should have just left her where she was Now Chevron, I like you, and don't mean any offense by saying this, But thats like saying you shoudn't get married because they didn't train you to do it in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Lesson learned: Don't play hero when you aren't qualified to do anything you're attempting to do. You aren't going to get a medal for being stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 But thats like saying you shoudn't get married because they didn't train you to do it in school. ... wut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Now Chevron, I like you, and don't mean any offense by saying this, But thats like saying you shoudn't get married because they didn't train you to do it in school. excellent idea, i don't need to have a medical degree to be a doctor, not when i can feel the medical knowledge flowing through me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 <snip> imminent danger <snip> imminent danger <snip> Seems to be something of a judgment call, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Tough call, really. If you have no training in how to deal with that kind of situation then the best way to render assistance would be to contact someone who does. Now if the car is on fire, that's another matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 You should probably know what you are doing if you want to help. If you can't do something right, you probably shouldn't do it. Really depends on the situation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 The traditional position in our system has been a reluctance to hold a rescuer to account, even in some circumstance where he has been somewhat careless, above and beyond the original wrongdoer. The rescuer's actions have to amount to something which 'breaks the chain of causation' - in other words, a consequence which would not have naturally occurred as a result of the original action (the crash in this instance). But this apparently simple definition has, typically, been bound up by new restrictions and tests and whatnot. It does appear though that a rescuer has to something more than slightly foolish to be responsible, such as new or greater injury that wouldn't have happened anyway. If it was tidied up, I think that this position is good. No liability normally, liability if you cause further injury (that would not have happened in any event, or in the course of the most careful and professional rescue) as a result. It's another example of the dangerous slope towards 'blame and claim' culture, really. At least most reasonable judges now seem to be taking a dim view of claims like that. And, just a further note - it is not unknown for an injured party to attempt to sue someone for failing to be a 'Good Samaritan', which English law doesn't recognise . In my opinion, both situations are unacceptable, unless it involves, as said (often), further, forseeable, unreasonable injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Well, if you're not trained and you make a stupid mistake that cost the woman the use of her legs when there was no imminent danger, you deserve to be sued. Oh, and good source, by the way. Easy to say. Mistakes happen and do not always involve negligence. Next time someone needs help, people might think twice...and just do nothing for fear of being sued and loose everything they have in terms of possessions and future possessions (and even potentially ruin their children's and family`s future, monetarily speaking). Tough call, really.QFE. Especially since we don't have much details on the above mentioned case (since it refers to the DA, I imagine it is criminal prosecution, not just civil but I don't know much about the US system). Every situation has its particulars. I am glad that in Quebec, not only we have good samaritan laws protecting people from being sued for any further injury or illness that results from the aid given (save gross negligence or intentional fault - more accurate summary here: http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/loi/other_infosheets/127/ ) in such as situation but there is also an an obligation to render aid if it can be accomplished without serious risks to the rescuer or a third person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Now Chevron, I like you, and don't mean any offense by saying this, But thats like saying you shoudn't get married because they didn't train you to do it in school. Excuse me? This sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Seems to be something of a judgment call, no? Of course. Isn't everything? Luckily we have a nice little thing called the legal system in order to determine whether or not it was a good enough call to eliminate liability. If you are an idiot and think that a crashed car is imminent peril, even though the person is conscious and complaining of a neck injury with no fire or blood present, then you're wrong. I'm assuming the court took that into consideration. Easy to say. Mistakes happen and do not always involve negligence. Next time someone needs help, people might think twice...and just do nothing for fear of being sued and loose everything they have in terms of possessions and future possessions (and even potentially ruin their children's and family`s future, monetarily speaking). I'm assuming the court would not convict a non-negligent rescuer. And if you do more harm then good because of negligence, you should think twice. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Well your hardly going to be kissing him for leaving you a paraplegic are you. With regards good Samaritans, just because you are attempting help, doesn't mean you shouldn't get it, if you did something stupid. Besides first aid is basically common sense, so if you do get it wrong, then you deserve to be sued for being stupid. e.g. if someone has a neck injury and is in pain, and there is no immediate reason to move them, and you can wait for medical staff - why move them? That second comment--I'm not completely sure I follow due to your wording. I might implicitly... Clarification please? Tough call, really. If you have no training in how to deal with that kind of situation then the best way to render assistance would be to contact someone who does. Now if the car is on fire, that's another matter entirely. That's what I was thinking. Call help and watch over the victim. That's what I'd do. In this case anyway. If the car was on fire or going over a cliff or something like that, action would be necessary. Yes it is another matter entirely. Yet still relevant. We can go here too. I rather suspect people change their minds in this circumstance. The traditional position in our system has been a reluctance to hold a rescuer to account, even in some circumstance where he has been somewhat careless, above and beyond the original wrongdoer. The rescuer's actions have to amount to something which 'breaks the chain of causation' - in other words, a consequence which would not have naturally occurred as a result of the original action (the crash in this instance). But this apparently simple definition has, typically, been bound up by new restrictions and tests and whatnot. [/Quote] Basically screw things up REALLY bad. It does appear though that a rescuer has to something more than slightly foolish to be responsible, such as new or greater injury that wouldn't have happened anyway. If it was tidied up, I think that this position is good. No liability normally, liability if you cause further injury (that would not have happened in any event, or in the course of the most careful and professional rescue) as a result. [/Quote] Tidied up perhaps...What about as-is? Could you enlighten us on the particular snafus? It's another example of the dangerous slope towards 'blame and claim' culture, really. At least most reasonable judges now seem to be taking a dim view of claims like that. [/Quote] They didn't before? And, just a further note - it is not unknown for an injured party to attempt to sue someone for failing to be a 'Good Samaritan', which English law doesn't recognise . In my opinion, both situations are unacceptable, unless it involves, as said (often), further, forseeable, unreasonable injury. Thank you, this is what I was hoping to get into. The ruling has happened. Now it will come up again. Even if things are fine the way they are, it never hurts to attempt to bring it to the forefront. I find blame and claim culture to be abhorrent, personally. However, I agree in the case of unreasonable handling, negligence, or other such things. One would hope judges are reasonable. I would not put it out of the realm of possibility that such laws for failure to assist could be attached to negligence laws preexisting. Perhaps my outrages were at some zealot's decision and it has since been reversed and I wasn't aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Basically screw things up REALLY bad. Yep, just about! Tidied up perhaps...What about as-is? Could you enlighten us on the particular snafus? Oh fun... Now bear in mind that this is English, not US, law. It isn't so much that the law is confused, it is more that it lacks clarity, precision. Liability for rescue centres on proving that the rescuer's actions were not forseeable or 'natural and probable' in the circumstances. Actions of a rescuer are generally treated as foreeable, and courts take into account a 'heat of the moment' mentality on the part of the rescuer. So you can see how a careless action won't always be enough. The tests that have been offered over the last 60 years are very imprecise, though. They call on the judge's opinion, really. The leading authority over here again uses vague language - forseeability; natural and probable result - which the judge (Lord Justice Stephenson) himself said would be a matter of opinion. That needs to be clarified, perhaps even by the Government by passing a law. They didn't before? No. In the 1970s we had one of the highest-ranked judges in the land who was quite keen on extending liability in every direction (Lord Wilberforce). His Lordship didn't seem to get near rescuer's liability, though. On the blaim and claim/compensation culture front, our courts have recently been getting badly bashed - mainly by the media, it must be said - for letting too many absurd claims through. There are a few very notable cases where ridiculous claims nearly got through, but in the most recent rulings, the Lords of Appeal (highest ranking judges) were clear that things would be tightened up, that things had gone to far for their liking. Which is good. Thank you, this is what I was hoping to get into. The ruling has happened. Now it will come up again. Even if things are fine the way they are, it never hurts to attempt to bring it to the forefront. If that is a ruling in support of rescuer's liability, courts will probably have the chance to elaborate upon it soon enough - maybe impose some limits on it before a mass of overzealous claims come in for people suing the person that rescued them. (It really does sound absurd, no?) I find blame and claim culture to be abhorrent, personally. However, I agree in the case of unreasonable handling, negligence, or other such things. One would hope judges are reasonable. I think most judges are reasonable enough - it's when you get a jury in the mix that things can go strange (which, I believe, is how the US civil suit system functions?) Certainly, that's what a government task force here had to say of the US system in comparison to ours. (For anyone interested: BRTF report 2004 - page 16 particularly for US/UK comparison) I would not put it out of the realm of possibility that such laws for failure to assist could be attached to negligence laws preexisting. I can't really speak for the US position on that, but from EW's link, it seems possible enough. We have a relatively long standing principle that a person cannot be held liable for failure to discharge a moral duty to rescue. (Lord Macaulay's Works) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Anything that would contribute to driving people away from helping for fear of litigation is BAD. I don't know all the facts in this case (i.e. was the Good Samaritan someone licensed in some medical profession, was there fear the car was on fire, would the lady have been paralyzed anyway due to the accident, etc.). The US is an insane patchwork of state Good Sam laws, some very good, some only adequate, some rather poor. Canada has a much better set of laws on Good Samaritan help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 That second comment--I'm not completely sure I follow due to your wording. I might implicitly... Clarification please? That if you are not trained; help and cause someone great harm, you deserve to get sued. i.e. if someone moved me when I didn't need to be moved and left me a paraplegic, I would sue. However if ambulance staff moved me, and I was left so, the assumption would be there was no other option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I know that it has been mentioned before and I thought to offer my thoughts. Since I don't know the facts of the case, I couldn't tell you if it was right or wrong for the guy to move the lady from the car. As Qliveur said, if the car were on fire or something like that then the right thing to do would be to pull the person away otherwise that would open a can of worms that would be unavoidable. If the person wasn't in any emminent danger, then the best thing to do would be to call emergency services and wait for rescue. I have heard of the phrase "leave it to the professionals" and in the case of emergencies like that , it would be prudent to obey. I have mixed feelings regarding suing since I think a lot of it is ridiculous nowadays. I will concede that there are legitimate claims like negligence which could lead to criminal charges but suing for emotional distress to me is nothing more than a get rich quick scheme. Yeah a person could get emotional distress, even I could but I don't go sue happy. It's funny how here in the states we have so many privileges like the right to sue yet we prefer to abuse them with ridiculous claims that more often work. Heck it makes the "Twinkie defense" the lesser of two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Edit: Source; http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/editors_corner/article/9758/ Well if there were concerns over the car exploding certainly puts things in a new light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I work for an insurance company and I know you can sue for any reason. Just because the court ruled the suit can go forward does not mean anything beyond the fact that both side will be allowed to present their evidence before the court/jury makes a decision. In an insurance law situation, I’d say the Good Samaritan only has to prove that a “reasonable person” would have reacted in a similar matter. I’ve been unlucky enough to have stopped at numerous accidents. So many in fact that I’ve went back and taken first aid and CPR training beyond what I received in Health class and the Boy Scouts. The Texas law only states you have to stop and render only the aid you have the ability to administer. Depending on your training, that can be as little as phoning the police and waiting for the emergency personal to arrive. Even if you only stop, phone the police and talk to the victim it can still make the difference between life and death. The phone call alerts emergency personal, the staying at the scene makes it easier for the emergency personal to find the location (in cases where the vehicle has left the pavement) and the talking to the victim may keep them from going into shock. On a personal note, even though they are terrible memories, ones that I hope never to repeat, I’m proud of the fact that I’ve stopped at the scene of accidents. Even in the case where all I could do was hold their hand and watch them die, at least they did not die alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Paralysis > dead from car explosion. Hitting a light pole at 45 mph might well have been the proximal cause of the paralysis anyway. I can't believe the court is letting this go forward. Oh, wait--it's California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.