Help @ your own risk

[Double Eights]

Re: Help @ your own risk

What is the matter with people these days?

Why is everyone so "sue happy?" A guy tried to help this woman, and now she is going to turn around and potentially ruin his life? Sure, she may have suffered injuries, but had he just left her there, she could have potentially lost her life.

What if he had just stood there, and talked to her instead of helping, and then the whole ****ing car exploded? Would that be considered negligence, and would the woman's family have had the right to sue? I don't see why not, thus I see no reason for anyone to help anyone anymore. If there is potential for lawsuits, just walk away.

I don't even know if I would help anyone anymore even if they give me the green light, because they can easily say they said no such thing and then sue me in the end if I hurt them. Verbal agreements aren't worth anything.

This lady just makes me want to keep on driving when I see bad accidents. It's not worth risking my life, as well as my pocketbook, in order to save some douchebag who will end up screwing me over in the end. I'm sure not all people are like that, but in this day and age, it isn't worth the risk. (I'd still probably stop and help, I have morals).

I lose more and more respect for my fellow man every day. Whether it be suing those who try to help you, or calling the cops on your fellow classmates when they are doing nothing [morally] wrong. People these days are just looking out for themselves, and give no thought to those around them. It's pathetic.

/end rant.

[Stroehms]

Re: Help @ your own risk

This is a sad story and yet reminds me of a situation from the Disney classic "The Incredibles"

That guy trying to commit suicide, jumps off the building and Mr. Incredible saves him.

The guy sues him because he did not want to be saved and has a neck injury, thus causing other civilians to sue other super heroes. In the end, the Supers had to go into hiding.

Well I guess that doesn't really relate to the story but you get what I'm saying.

[MassNole]

Re: Help @ your own risk

So if I were to save an 80 year old man from a burning car after an accident and somehow injure him during the "rescue", then I can be sued for negligence?

It would depend what you did, these cases are very fact specific.

[countryboy]

Re: Help @ your own risk

It would depend what you did, these cases are very fact specific.

What if his ankle was trapped and in my hurried state due to the car being on fire, I don't attempt to free his ankle and just yank him out of the car thus breaking his ankle. Could I be sued for negligence or be sued for the cost of his medical bills because I broke his ankle in an attempt to save his life vs letting him die?

[MassNole]

Re: Help @ your own risk

What if he had just stood there, and talked to her instead of helping, and then the whole ****ing car exploded? Would that be considered negligence, and would the woman's family have had the right to sue? I don't see why not, thus I see no reason for anyone to help anyone anymore. If there is potential for lawsuits, just walk away.

It depends, did his sitting there and talking to her cause someone else who may have attempted a rescue to not try because they thought he was helping when he really wasn't? If yes, then he could be sued, if no then he couldn't be (or if he was he'd win on summary judgment).

[Knight165]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Mass.....are you sure you studied law in the United States?

The Good Samaritan laws were enacted to protect against exactly what you are saying. Bystanders ARE NOT to be held liable for their actions....correct or incorrect in cases of emergency. They were enacted so that the untrained/unprofessional did not have to fear lawsuits from the injured parties when tending help.

It's the professional who must make sure the aid they render is in compliance with local public health laws.
Yes...we are covered under certain articles..(like Article 30 of the Public Health Code here in N.Y.), but the standards are pretty specific.
Not all jurisdictions allow for the Good Samaritan law...and ironically California was one state which was seriously considering adding a "DUTY TO ACT" provision to the law which would have made it a crime(which it is in some states, I believe) to NOT help an injured person(a civilian.....it is one for a trained professional not to act)
Any missteps and we are very vulnerable to negligence lawsuits. Abandonment, negligence...acting beyond scope of training(like here in N.Y. only a paramedic can administer intravenous drugs...if I was to do it...even correctly....I could be sued)

Tough situation for the guy who tried to help.

M.K.
Knight165

[Scottdau]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Mass.....are you sure you studied law in the United States?

The Good Samaritan laws were enacted to protect against exactly what you are saying. Bystanders ARE NOT to be held liable for their actions....correct or incorrect in cases of emergency. They were enacted so that the untrained/unprofessional did not have to fear lawsuits from the injured parties when tending help.

It's the professional who must make sure the aid they render is in compliance with local public health laws.
Yes...we are covered under certain articles..(like Article 30 of the Public Health Code here in N.Y.), but the standards are pretty specific.
Not all jurisdictions allow for the Good Samaritan law...and ironically California was one state which was seriously considering adding a "DUTY TO ACT" provision to the law which would have made it a crime(which it is in some states, I believe) to NOT help an injured person(a civilian.....it is one for a trained professional not to act)
Any missteps and we are very vulnerable to negligence lawsuits. Abandonment, negligence...acting beyond scope of training(like here in N.Y. only a paramedic can administer intravenous drugs...if I was to do it...even correctly....I could be sued)

Tough situation for the guy who tried to help.

M.K.
Knight165

Actually he is right Knight. That is only in some states I think. They said they are trying to have something pass for that reason, but right now it is not in effect. They are reliable for the damage if they were neglectful in their rescuing.

[Knight165]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Actually he is right Knight. That is only in some states I think. They said they are trying to have something pass for that reason, but right now it is not in effect. They are reliable for the damage if they were neglectful in their rescuing.

I don't think so Scott...
First...I'm pretty sure California IS indeed a Good Samaritan state....hence that is why the California Supreme Court had to rule to allow this case to be heard....

...at any rate that has no bearing on what I'm saying Mass is incorrect about...
Here is what he said...."If you are negligent when helping someone in a situation like this, you can be sued for the damage you cause. As far as we know his negligence turned a bad situation even worse. This has been the law for a while to the best of my knowledge, at least since I took Torts as a 1L and was covered a lot during Barbri courses as it is a common trick on the Multistate. I know this isn't common knowledge, but this was the California court system catching up with lots of other states.

Similarly, if your negligence causes someone to attempt to rescue you or another person, you would be responsible for the injuries to the rescuer."

...and here is the gist of the Good Samaritan law...
...Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles such as consent, parental rights, and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.


M.K.
Knight165

[Scottdau]

Re: Help @ your own risk

I don't think so Scott...
First...I'm pretty sure California IS indeed a Good Samaritan state....hence that is why the California Supreme Court had to rule to allow this case to be heard....

...at any rate that has no bearing on what I'm saying Mass is incorrect about...
Here is what he said...."If you are negligent when helping someone in a situation like this, you can be sued for the damage you cause. As far as we know his negligence turned a bad situation even worse. This has been the law for a while to the best of my knowledge, at least since I took Torts as a 1L and was covered a lot during Barbri courses as it is a common trick on the Multistate. I know this isn't common knowledge, but this was the California court system catching up with lots of other states.

Similarly, if your negligence causes someone to attempt to rescue you or another person, you would be responsible for the injuries to the rescuer."

...and here is the gist of the Good Samaritan law...
...Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles such as consent, parental rights, and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.


M.K.
Knight165

Yeah I know, but I am telling you it is not like that in court. They will go after the neglectful part. It is what it is. They are hoping the judge throws it out, but you never know.

[MassNole]

Re: Help @ your own risk

What if his ankle was trapped and in my hurried state due to the car being on fire, I don't attempt to free his ankle and just yank him out of the car thus breaking his ankle. Could I be sued for negligence or be sued for the cost of his medical bills because I broke his ankle in an attempt to save his life vs letting him die?

Could you be sued, yes?

Would the plaintiff win, I don't know. it would depend on the jury, I could argue it both ways.

[MassNole]

Re: Help @ your own risk

I don't think so Scott...
First...I'm pretty sure California IS indeed a Good Samaritan state....hence that is why the California Supreme Court had to rule to allow this case to be heard....

...at any rate that has no bearing on what I'm saying Mass is incorrect about...
Here is what he said...."If you are negligent when helping someone in a situation like this, you can be sued for the damage you cause. As far as we know his negligence turned a bad situation even worse. This has been the law for a while to the best of my knowledge, at least since I took Torts as a 1L and was covered a lot during Barbri courses as it is a common trick on the Multistate. I know this isn't common knowledge, but this was the California court system catching up with lots of other states.

Similarly, if your negligence causes someone to attempt to rescue you or another person, you would be responsible for the injuries to the rescuer."

...and here is the gist of the Good Samaritan law...
...Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles such as consent, parental rights, and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.


M.K.
Knight165

Good Samaritan laws are the minority rule.

[Knight165]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Good Samaritan laws are the minority rule.

Perhaps, but we are speaking of California...a Good Samaritan state.
You stated that you may be sued if you try and render aid to someone and injure them through negligence(I guess now you meant where there are no Good Samaritan Laws).....but that should be obvious. Otherwise, why would there BE a Good Samaritan Law?
Does it matter if it's the "minority rule" in the nation? Isn't that what jurisdictions are all about?

But with this new ruling....it seems a moot point from here on out.
All bets are off in Cali now.

M.K.
Knight165

[Scottdau]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Well according to the video the Judge has accepted it. So I don't know what the Law is?

[Knight165]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Well according to the video the Judge has accepted it. So I don't know what the Law is?

Are you stating "you don't know what the law is". ......or asking(rhetorically) "I don't know what the law is?....

Yes...the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which is in direct conflict with California's Good Samaritan Law, hence all the hubbub about it.
The case could NOT be brought to court until the California Supreme Court ruled that it could...because the soon to be defendants were originally(and rightfully IMO) covered under the protection of the Good Sam Law.

If I'm stating the obvious to you....I'm sorry....I'm just not following what you are saying clearly.(my fault if so)

M.K.
Knight165

[Scottdau]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Are you stating "you don't know what the law is". ......or asking(rhetorically) "I don't know what the law is?....

Yes...the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which is in direct conflict with California's Good Samaritan Law, hence all the hubbub about it.
The case could NOT be brought to court until the California Supreme Court ruled that it could...because the soon to be defendants were originally(and rightfully IMO) covered under the protection of the Good Sam Law.

If I'm stating the obvious to you....I'm sorry....I'm just not following what you are saying clearly.(my fault if so)

M.K.
Knight165

Well according the the vid they are going to hear the case. That is all I mean. If the Law was in effect I don't know how this is even being heard.