|
The California Supreme Court ruled that a woman can sue the co-worker who pulled her from a car after an accident because he feared the car might catch fire. Does anyone else think that allowing people to be sued for trying to help someone else is bad legal preccedent? The only way I can see this going down is that more people will end up seriously hurt or dead because people will be worried about stopping to help and then getting sued.
Wow. Just wow. That is unbelievable. And oddly reminiscent of the beginning of The Incredibles.
Drunk hits lamppost, other drunk pulls from vehicle. There’s a moral here somewhere.
If someone sues you for a lifesaving maneuver, it’s my belief you should be able to administer the potential injuries you prevented.
|
Man, you people overreact to everything. It's funny.
Firstly, you seem to think the woman had no injuries, going by some of the comments here. She became paraplegic thanks to this 'saviours' actions. Rather a serious condition, one would think.
Next, people who have suffered head injuries should never be moved, unless there is a serious chance of further, serious injury. The court ruled that remaining in the car did not present this risk (American cars, after all, do not explode as often as they do in the movies)
Finally, she still has to go to court. Which will likely get her nothing. Sure, she shouldn't be getting sued, but that's what your litigation culture gets you. Still, the claim has to prove negligence, and the jury will likely be instructed to take into account the situation.
You cannot get sued in my state; NM for such a thing; you can be sued for being there and not helping am pretty sure; we have a good samaritain law; now; you still have lots of other things that could go wrong for you if you are not a professional; someone might argue assessment of threat level and like that; especially if spinal or neck injuries and whatnot; but I have never heard of anything like that; our state has so many drunk drivers; like 60% of the population or some such; that everything else if drugs or booze in involved seems to get pushed aside.
There are lots of states with silly laws; good reason not to live in California I would say; or to organize a campaign to change the law.
all I can say is burning to death is pretty horrible way to go and the stupid git should be thankful she is alive.
If and only if the woman rescued told her co-worker to leave her in the car and they ignored her wishes should she be able to sue them. Other wise she needs to go to victim counsling to get over it.
She may have been unconscious or at least addled at the time.
Unfortunately this also opens for door for the opposite. "Well your honor this man just watched as my daughters car caught fire and roasted her alive. Even though she told him to leave her alone she just wasn't in her right mind at the time. He should pay for his crime."
This is called a "Duty to Rescue" law. very common in jurisdictions that utilize the Napoleonic Code as the basis for their legal system.
America, since it derives its legal system from British Common Law does not have such a legal precedent. The exceptions are for common sense things like a contractor thats showing you around his work site has a duty to help you if you get into trouble on the site. Parents are required to help their children, emergency response people are required to do everything in their power to save people etc.
These states have some kind of a 'Duty to Rescue' law in effect. Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. In each of these states if you see some one in peril you are required by law to try and help them.
In Canada we have two legal systems. In most of Canada British Common Law is observed so there is no 'Duty to Rescue' but Quebec law derives from the Napoleonic Code and therefore has a 'Duty to Rescue' law.
|
If and only if the woman rescued told her co-worker to leave her in the car and they ignored her wishes should she be able to sue them. Other wise she needs to go to victim counsling to get over it.She may have been unconscious or at least addled at the time.
That's my point if she was unconscious and her coworker acted on what she believed was in the victim's best interest the co-worker shouldn't be able to sue.
|
When I got my first-aid training, we were told that if we intervened outside work (as it was only a for work course) we could be sued, but that in the 100 and something year history of the St John's Ambulance, no one had succeeded in bringing a suit against people they'd trained as long as they did things by the guidelines. Note, successfully brought a suit. Some people unsuccessfully sued.
Also, we were told that if someone was conscious and told you to leave them alone, you had to. The second they go unconscious, you're legally allowed to use your first aid skills to save their life as, being unconscious, their life is now significantly at risk. This includes things like removing motorcycle helmets and other options that are dangerous.
Fortunately, I haven't had to put any of those principles into practice yet.
|
|
I recommend checking out Faces of Lawsuit Abuse for those who want more information about our out of control litigation culture.
I recommend checking out Faces of Lawsuit Abuse for those who want more information about our out of control litigation culture.
Really, all you have to do is think about that jackass Judge in Washington D.C. who sued the cleaners he took his pants to. He claimed they gave him back the wrong pants, and their sign saying "satisfaction gauranteed" meant they were liable (for some unknown reason). Jakass proceeds to sue this mom and pop dry cleaner for the past few years trying to go for over 60 million.
Wow.
When I was a kid growing up in Alaska, my parents were friends with the owner of a Truck Stop.
The guy was sued because a truck driver parked his truck and came into eat. While eating, a huge bull moose took the truck as a threat, backed up about fifty feet, and charged into the engine of the truck. Killed the moose, damaged the truck...
OBVIOUSLY the Truck Stop owner's fault!!!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't know what the details of this particular case are, but in general a negligent rescue is actionable and has been for some time under English/American common law. So, this isn't particularly new, at least on the face of it.
My recollection of the general legal theory is that the standard for negligence takes into account the circumstances of the rescue. So, if the person performing the rescue was using reasonable care in the circumstances, they should not be held liable. It's a tough issue in general though - as a society, you definitely want people to step in and provide assistance to those in peril. But, on the other hand, you don't want to shield the moron who decides the only way to get you out of your car is to lop off your leg with a chainsaw rather than wait for the jaws of life to arrive. As much as I would want someone to rescue me from peril, I really don't want them doing a half-assed job that leaves me worse than I would have been if they'd left me alone. And that strikes me as the correct analysis, whether the rescuer acted reasonably in performing the rescue (taking into account the stress and danger involved). Further, any right of recovery I may have against a negligent rescuer should take into account the harm prevented by that rescue.
My recollection of the general legal theory is that the standard for negligence takes into account the circumstances of the rescue. So, if the person performing the rescue was using reasonable care in the circumstances, they should not be held liable. It's a tough issue in general though - as a society, you definitely want people to step in and provide assistance to those in peril. But, on the other hand, you don't want to shield the moron who decides the only way to get you out of your car is to lop off your leg with a chainsaw rather than wait for the jaws of life to arrive. As much as I would want someone to rescue me from peril, I really don't want them doing a half-assed job that leaves me worse than I would have been if they'd left me alone. And that strikes me as the correct analysis, whether the rescuer acted reasonably in performing the rescue (taking into account the stress and danger involved). Further, any right of recovery I may have against a negligent rescuer should take into account the harm prevented by that rescue.
First things first...kill ALL the lawyers...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
First things first...kill ALL the lawyers...
Hmmm...looks like you're trying to intentionally inflict emotional distress on myself and my fellow soul-less kin. Looks like it's time to file a class action against...
Paizo! They were negligent in operating their boards by allowing people to post anything I may find offensive. Mha ha ha.
My recollection of the general legal theory is that the standard for negligence takes into account the circumstances of the rescue. So, if the person performing the rescue was using reasonable care in the circumstances, they should not be held liable. It's a tough issue in general though - as a society, you definitely want people to step in and provide assistance to those in peril. But, on the other hand, you don't want to shield the moron who decides the only way to get you out of your car is to lop off your leg with a chainsaw rather than wait for the jaws of life to arrive. As much as I would want someone to rescue me from peril, I really don't want them doing a half-assed job that leaves me worse than I would have been if they'd left me alone. And that strikes me as the correct analysis, whether the rescuer acted reasonably in performing the rescue (taking into account the stress and danger involved). Further, any right of recovery I may have against a negligent rescuer should take into account the harm prevented by that rescue.First things first...kill ALL the lawyers...
Blasphemer!
|
|
First things first...kill ALL the lawyers...Hmmm...looks like you're trying to intentionally inflict emotional distress on myself and my fellow soul-less kin. Looks like it's time to file a class action against...
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I guess suing Shakespear's estate would be problematic...
;)
|
Does anyone else think that allowing people to be sued for trying to help someone else is bad legal preccedent?
I don't think there should be a ban on these types of lawsuits...some may be warranted.
What I am against are laws forcing people to help, like in the Seinfeld finale.
Unfortunately this also opens for door for the opposite. "Well your honor this man just watched as my daughters car caught fire and roasted her alive. Even though she told him to leave her alone she just wasn't in her right mind at the time. He should pay for his crime."
Yeah, lawsuits like this should be thrown out. He should have been able to roast marshmallows off her burning corpse had he wanted to.
|
|
Well, suing someone who tries to help you is a good way to ensure that people in our society become even more calloused and uncaring than they already are:
"Look! That toddler just fell off the dock! She's going to drown!"
"Let her go, if you even bruise her pulling her out of the water, her parents will sue you for every cent you have."
"How can you be so cold about it?!"
"I've got my own kids to think about, I don't want us living out of my car!"
|
|
First things first...kill ALL the lawyers...Hmmm...looks like you're trying to intentionally inflict emotional distress on myself and my fellow soul-less kin. Looks like it's time to file a class action against...
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I guess suing Shakespear's estate would be problematic...
;)
Sue the English royal family, their ancesters sponsored Shakespear therefore they are to blame.
|
I don't know what the details of this particular case are, but in general a negligent rescue is actionable and has been for some time under English/American common law. So, this isn't particularly new, at least on the face of it.
The case is VanHorn v. Watson et al. I pulled up the appeal on Lexis and copy/pasted the Factual & Procedural Background:
The accident happened when Watson lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a curb and light standard at about 45 miles per hour. The police concluded that it was the speed at which Watson was traveling that had caused the accident. The force of the impact caused the front air bags to deploy. Plaintiff was in the front passenger seat. When the Watson vehicle crashed, Ofoegbu pulled his vehicle off to the side of the road and he and Torti exited their vehicle to assist the other three people. Torti removed plaintiff from Watson's vehicle. Watson was able to leave the vehicle by himself. Ofoegbu assisted Freed by opening a door for her.
Plaintiff sued Watson, Ofoegbu and Torti. The cause of action against Torti alleged that even though plaintiff was not in need of assistance from Torti after the accident, and had only sustained injury to her vertebrae, Torti dragged plaintiff out of the vehicle, causing permanent damage to her spinal cord and rendering her a paraplegic. After some discovery, Torti moved for summary judgment.
It is clear, from the papers filed by the parties in support and opposition to Torti's motion, that there are conflicting recollections about the critical events that followed the accident. Torti apparently removed plaintiff from the vehicle because she feared the car would catch fire or “blow up.” Although Torti testified at deposition that she saw smoke coming from the top of Watson's vehicle and also saw liquid coming from the vehicle, these facts were subject to dispute. There is also a dispute as to how Torti removed plaintiff from the car. Torti testified that she placed one arm under plaintiff's legs and the other behind plaintiff's back to lift her out of the car; plaintiff testified that Torti used one hand to grab her by the arm and pull her out of the car “like a rag doll.”
Emergency personnel were called to the scene and plaintiff and Freed were treated and taken to the hospital. Plaintiff suffered various injuries, including injury to her vertebrae and a lacerated liver that required emergency surgery. There is a dispute whether the accident itself caused plaintiff's paraplegia.
There is news article here that is a little more balanced than the typical "She sued a Good Samaritan! How terrible!" treatment this case seems to be getting. Torti seems to have been the only person that thought there was any immediate danger, and even that is a little suspect considering that she just pulled VanHorn out of the car and dumped her on the median beside it.
"We all know that anyone suspected of a spinal injury should not be moved," He (VanHorn's Lawyer) said. "She was not bleeding and was conscious. If the car had been on fire, why didn't she carry her 50 yards away?"
So if Torti was an EMT, or otherwise trained in first aid, and was providing medical care then she would have been protected.
"The court majority said the 1980 Emergency Medical Service Act, which Torti's lawyers cited for protection, was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently"
Torti lost her wits, ran over, dragged her friend out of the car before emergency personnel could arrive, and then dumped her on the ground. She made the situation worse, not better.
Lots of people lose their wits in crisis situations and don't think entirely clearly. Good Samaritans need and deserve some level of protection.
|
|
Lots of people lose their wits in crisis situations and don't think entirely clearly. Good Samaritans need and deserve some level of protection.
Actual "Good Samaritans" HAVE a reasonable amount of legal protection. They had protection before this case came to trial, and they still have it after. This case doesn't really change anything except, perhaps, to further clarify some legal guidelines.
The California Supeme Court isn't saying that the defendants deserve to be sued. It is only saying that the specific reasoning used by the lower courts (i.e. a law written to protect EMTs) doesn't apply here so they can be sued. The plaintiff still needs to win the lawsuit.
My point is that this is a bit more of a gray area than some of the headlines are making it seem.