No. The lesson is not to be an idiot who makes important and life-altering decisions based on stupid movies.
I need to know if it really was the friend's manhandling of the car crash victim that hurt her before I can make a judgement. Plus, how did the accident happen? Was the driver being negligent or did somebody else cause them to crash into a light pole? If they did crash into a light pole at 45 mph, there's a chance they may have been speeding by 10 mph. The other question is what condition was the victim in at the time? Did she tell the friend to stop or did she have the same irrational fear of an exploding car too?
The only concern I have with this, is that if the case goes forward and this person wins, that could open a floodgate of new lawsuits; people suing others for just abiding by Good Samaritan Laws...those same "do-gooders" will then be hesitant to help anyone who requires medical attention for fear of being sued, only to be sued for not helping in a situation in which there was minimal to no danger involved. It just seems to defeat the purpose of having Good Samaritan Laws in the first place. At the same time, I think more information is necessary to really determine if the woman was right in her actions or not. When you take CPR/AED/First Aid classes with the Red Cross, they always make it a point to say that when you are offering aid to adult victims who are conscious, you must identify yourself and get consent to help FIRST. If they refuse, you leave them alone. And I think that will be a critical point in this case. The other would be if the situation demanded that the person be moved. You DO NOT move the victim unless the environment is too dangerous or you have to move one person to render care to another.
That's interesting and will rethink about things when I see a car on fire. I've actually seen a car explode that was on fire. During the Rodney King riots in Berkeley a car was torched down the street from where I was and it exploded, not quite like a bomb but there was a fire ball. Now that I think about it that might've been due to something someone through at it. One thing though I wonder about the piece is if gasoline has such a narrow burn rate what causes molotov cocktails to blow up?
I don't think they blow up. The glass breaks causing the fuel to come into contact with the burning rag and igniting the fuel as it splashes.
If you do something. . and it is wrong .. you liable If you do nothing . .. you liable as well? Rocket River . . . .so in the future . .. just leave them there. . they die. . well they just die
so you know everything about every situations I'm sorry but I would venture to guess that 80% of the people in the world are not studied on the explosiveness of gas so like Donnie said. . . the lesson learn by most is: no good will come from helping a person so . . leave them there and walk on by This is why folx don't run to a Rape Victim or Domestic Violence or Child Abuse. . . it aint their business and could COST THEM whether is it money or hassle or even bodily harm Rocket River we create a society where no one wants to help . .. then turn around an complain about no one helping their fellow man . . ..????? You cannot have it both ways
how pathetic, what an awful person, a terrible friend, and a piece of **** human being for suing someone for potentially saving their life
Anyway, unless there's more to this than the article described, this woman acted out of ignorance by assuming the car would just explode like a bomb like in the movies. You don't even need to know about the science of it; there are plenty of car crashes in the news that don't result in explosions. Reporting child abuse or stopping a rape? Those things aren't even comparable.
So if I see you knocked out, but think you need CPR (and you don't), and have no CPR training...then attempt to apply CPR, causing significant damage to your body...you would be a piece of **** for suing me?
General Rule: One has no duty to act (read: help/rescue/take care/etc). Exceptions (that apply in this particular case): -Traditional View (minority of states follow this): Once a person starts to act, the person cannot leave the other in a worse position (e.g. start to rescue a drowning person, but in doing so, you accidently take him out further and then save your own ass and leave him out there). -Modern Trend (CA and most states follow this): Once a person starts to act, the person must act reasonably (e.g. if the person you are rescuing keeps pulling you under water and you are also about to drown, you can bail on the rescue attempt).
If I ever see you dieing in real life and no one is around and in my mind i know i can save you, i wont do it. ill just stand there and watch u die slowly because if i try and saved ur life you're probably still going to sued me for saving your life. It doesn't matter how you put buddy, the other posters are right, suing somebody after they tried to save your sorry ass life is just morally wrong.
Unfortunately that's the guidance that law gives us. The classical example is baby on the railroad track, you can hear the train coming, but law says you don't have duty to rescue the baby. Should you rescue the baby, you better make sure you exercise reasonable care and if you leave the baby on the sidewalk and the baby gets run over by a car later, you are liable. Tough, huh? There are debates on this rule. Mainly it's the libertarian v. moralist. Of course there are many exceptions to the general no duty rule, which is mislabeled as the good Samaritan rule (it really should be the bad Samaritan rule)
Yep, you are liable in that case, and you bet there are real cases just like what you described. If you call ambulance instead of giving CPR, you will have no trouble. The more ridiculous "one" is that a CPR expert gets sued for failing to give CPR up to the expert standard, because there is the superhero (superior ability) rule that holds the expert helper to the expert standard, not a reasonable person care standard anymore. You bet there are cases where victim stayed in the hospital and found out about some heart condition and decided to sue the CPR expert rescuer. In this light, this case is not bizarre at all.
Morally wrong, sometimes. But in case like this one, if someone pulls you out of wreckage like a "ragged doll" hurting you. Do you thank her or sue her? Especially after you find out the car wasn't going to explode and ambulance was arriving within 3 minutes.
The answer is NO and it didn't even cost me a second to come up with that no. Will I be mad at her? certainly, but I sure as hell won't sued somebody for trying to save my life. She had good intention and that's all that matter to me. Maybe that's just how I was raised I guess.
Well, if you know you would have been saved properly , but lost your leg or arm due to her inconsiderable rescue, will you change your mind? You don't have to answer, just think about it.
lol. I love someone getting on their moral high horse, then turn around and say "I wont save your life if I know I can." Then telling someone they have a "sorry ass life." If you truly think something is the right thing to do you'll do it no matter what. Otherwise, shut up about your morals. You're clearly a beacon of shining light on top of the hill of moral authority. You don't seem to get the idea that there are a lot of idiots in this world. I don't want these idiots attempting to save my life when they have no idea what to do. If you're that trusting of people in this world, more power to you. You still don't seem to get the idea that people still have to go to court and win a case in front of a jury. It's not like I can sue you and force you to pay me millions of dollars.
