View Single Post
Old 12-22-2008, 07:41 AM   #18
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
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?

Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
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.

Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
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.
Basically screw things up REALLY bad.

Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
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.
Tidied up perhaps...What about as-is? Could you enlighten us on the particular snafus?
Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
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.
They didn't before?

Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
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.

That's right, Bixby Snyder folks.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,