Help @ your own risk

[rsnomar05]

Re: Help @ your own risk

rsnomar...

I just want you to know....that I'm not "challenging" you to find me a case like that...as if I refuse to believe you otherwise....
I'd just be interested in seeing one.(I also realize that you are probably swamped with studies....so if time is a factor.....I fully understand that, but for me to try and find something like that would be pretty difficult...I wouldn't know where to start)

This situation has me very interested in what will happen.
.....and if I am wrong about the scope of the Samaritan Law there....I apologize.....
I hope I'm not though, not for the sake of being correct, but I would actually find it a bit disheartening to think that someone could be punished for trying to help(even though the results were tragic).
If it were a professional....negligence would certainly be in order IMO...but not for a civilian I think.

M.K.
Knight165

I didn't see your second post.

The thing to note here is that in this case the Supreme Court is not saying that this person is guilty, or that you can't move someone while in a rescue act.

Instead, they are saying that because immunity applies only to medical emergencies, anyone attempting a rescue in an instance like this has a duty of reasonable care. In a tort suit, it is up to the jury to decide whether or not the rescuer acted negligently.

The defendant was granted summary judgment by the trial court, because the trial judge (wrongly, according to the Supreme Court) granted immunity to the defendant.

So the case never went to a jury.

If the rescuer acted reasonably, then the rescuer has nothing to worry about.

But the plaintiff claims that the defendant yanked her out of the car "like a rag-doll," and dragged her to safety.

The Supreme Court is saying that if you act in a negligent manner like this, you shouldn't be granted immunity just because you were attempting a rescue.

If it is true that the plaintiff was yanked "like a rag-doll" and dragged, being permanently paralyzed as a result, then I don't think the defendant should be immune.

If instead the defendant placed both hands under her and carried her to safety, carefully placing her down, then the jury won't find negligence.

It will all come down to who can offer more proof or be more convincing.

In summation, all the Supreme Court is really saying is that the plaintiff has a right to have the jury decide whether or not the defendant acted negligently.

Edit: I can pull up more cases if needed, but this is the most recent one and it's from the highest court in the state, so at least for now it serves as precedent.

[Knight165]

Re: Help @ your own risk

Yes.
I understand that the Supreme Court has granted this woman the right to have her case heard.
I didn't realize that they had went as far as to say that they do not consider removal of a victim as part of rendering E.M.S.(ridiculous IMO)
One thing....I wish I could have seen pictures of the accident scene...but even so....I'm going to guess that most civilians are under the impression that a vehicle in an accident can "blow up"(thanks to a lot of TV and film) when in actuality, it's VERY rare for even a vehicle on fire to explode.
The would be rescuer's state of mind I guess had a lot to do with this, as his perceived danger led to him improperly moving(not REmoving..the actual way he moved this woman) the victim.
Which also leads me to something else.
I just don't understand how they can argue negligence.
Negligence is described as reasonable care.
If the woman was lying in the middle of the street...a busy intersection and he wanted to safeguard her from further harm....and he didn't know how to properly move or have the necessary equipment to properly move her...but did so anyway...that would be negligence IMO. He simply could have directed traffic around her...or stopped it entirely by some means.
But if there is a much larger danger...such as being trapped in a car that is about to catch fire...something that he couldn't control....I don't see how his perceived danger to her and subsequent movement of her can be thought of as UNreasonable. Leave her there....she dies(at the very least in his mind)
Now the actual WAY he moved her(incorrectly...causing her injury) is CERTAINLY medical in nature. Moving a person who is NOT injured would cause no reasonable risk. If you were laying on the ground....uninjured...I could drag you around with very little injury...maybe some minor abrasions. But if you had already attained injuries(obvious...since she is paralyzed now)....not correctly stabilizing her could cause further injury. STABILIZATION is a MEDICAL procedure and therefor should absolutely be covered under the Good Sam Law.
My point...

Moving here w/o stabilizing the spine(a medical procedure) caused her injury...and it might not have mattered if he moved her like a precious baby or a rag doll.

But I guess that's for his lawyers to argue.

M.K.
Knight165

[Knight165]

Re: Help @ your own risk

....and damn...I always forget to finish my posts...(gettin' old)

I'm not arguing with you here rsnomar...just "thinking" out loud.

M.K.
Knight165