http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/08/01/2-men-suing-woman-they-sa...
Cliffs: Two guys save a woman from a wrecked, burning vehicle. They have filed a lawsuit against her to get compensation for their injuries.
Just wow.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 5:48 a.m. z31maniac SuperDork
-
Aug. 2, 2011 6:07 a.m. fasted58 Dork
K, so now all the underfunded VFDs can quit having Bingo and spaghetti dinners for fundraisers... they might as well just sue the victims of MVAs and fires, nice.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 6:57 a.m. Woody SuperDork
fasted58 wrote:
K, so now all the underfunded VFDs can quit having Bingo and spaghetti dinners for fundraisers... they might as well just sue the victims of MVAs and fires, nice.
I didn't see anything in there about the rescuers being volunteer firefighters.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 7:38 a.m. chuckles Reader
I think 58's point is that they were volunteers.
A blurb in my morning newspaper about this deal emphasizes that the lawsuit focuses on the allegation that the driver was attempting suicide...that is, this was in no way an "accident." The attached article barely touches on that point. I'm not sure how that changes things in my mind, if at all. But it is, apparently, the focus of the lawsuit.
FWIW.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 8:27 a.m. oldsaw SuperDork
from the article:
“The precedent is clear: danger invites rescue ... and if you’ve acted recklessly or negligently and someone gets hurt rescuing you, you could be in trouble,” said Stan Darling, who teaches tort law and civil procedure at Capital.
Every state, including Ohio, has a “Good Samaritan” law that is intended to absolve rescuers from liability when they, in good faith, attempt to save someone. But when it comes to the protection of the people being aided, judges and lawyers look to a federally recognized tort law known as “the Rescue Doctrine,” Darling said.
It essentially says that, if the people being helped were negligent or reckless when they created real danger, there could be a chance to recover damages if the rescuers acted reasonably and can prove their injuries.
The rescuers contend they wouldn't have incurred any injuries at all if the "victim" hadn't attempted suicide.
Hmmm.........
-
Aug. 2, 2011 8:39 a.m. foxtrapper SuperDork
Nothing new. This stuff has been around for many years. Centuries in fact.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 9:09 a.m. Josh Dork
Well, when a hospital does it it's just good business, right?
-
Aug. 2, 2011 9:24 a.m. oldtin Dork
Fire depts used to be private - payment up front if you don't want your stuff cooked.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 9:25 a.m. z31maniac SuperDork
In reply to oldsaw:
Had they not attemtped to rescue her, they would not have incurred any injuries.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 10:22 a.m. oldsaw SuperDork
In reply to z31maniac:
Are you just being a contrarian, or admitting you wouldn't bother lifting a hand in helping a person in need?
-
Aug. 2, 2011 10:37 a.m. z31maniac SuperDork
No, I'm being honest. I know about the Resue Doctrine, I just think it's despicable.
I'm not saying I wouldn't have helped, I would like to think that I would have done everything in my power to help.
But to expect compensation for KNOWINGLY putting yourself in a dangerous situation............that just doesn't sit well with me.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 10:38 a.m. fastEddie SuperDork
Sounds kind of familiar, but the other way around....
-
Aug. 2, 2011 1:21 p.m. Schmidlap HalfDork
I'm not sure how I feel about this (I didn't read the article), but I'm guessing this is there logic:
The woman committing suicide should have realized that people would try to rescue her from her burning car and that they would risk injury to do it, so she should have tried to kill herself in a manner that didn't risk the health of others. If she had committed suicide by OD'ing on painkillers in her house, she would not have risked injuring other people. She is negligent for not protecting others the consequences of her actions and thus owes those people for their injuries.
At least, that's what I'm assuming their argument is.
Bob
-
Aug. 2, 2011 3:21 p.m. sachilles Dork
Without the specifics, this is only a guess.
You go to rescue someone, only to find them resisting the rescue. They injure you by resisting your aid. You sue them. Basically they injure the rescuers, while attempting to fatally injure themselves(knowingly injure the rescuers).
Sadly, I don't think every state has good samaritan laws. So you may be sued for your attempt to help someone.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 4:06 p.m. integraguy SuperDork
Maybe they should change the term to GOODS samaritan...as in, we save you from, now we want your goods?
-
Aug. 2, 2011 5:07 p.m. purplepeopleeater Reader
From the article it seems that if the person being rescued was negligent i.e. suicidal, drunk, stoned & they caused the situation they needed rescuing from then they are liable for damages suffered by the rescuers. I did not get the impression that she would be liable if she had been run off the road of had a blowout.
-
Aug. 2, 2011 6:31 p.m. flountown Reader
From the sounds of it, if it was a normal accident and car fire, that the rescuers' injuries would probably be covered in insurance. Insurance probably told the lady to shove off after finding out it was a suicide attempt so now the good samaritans are being boned for medical bills. Absolutely justifiable in my opinion.
-
Aug. 3, 2011 5:12 a.m. foxtrapper SuperDork
z31maniac wrote:
I'm not saying I wouldn't have helped, I would like to think that I would have done everything in my power to help.
But to expect compensation for KNOWINGLY putting yourself in a dangerous situation............that just doesn't sit well with me.
But you won't get compensated for putting yourself in a dangerous situation.
You can only get compensated for getting hurt while rescuing a person. Especially if the person you rescued deliberately created the dangerous situation that got you hurt.
In simple terms, why should you the rescuer suffer injury on your dime while the person you rescue gets off scott free?
-
Aug. 3, 2011 6:19 a.m. z31maniac SuperDork
We aren't talking about trained rescuers or the state's money, and the girl crashing the car should be responsible for those expenditures.
We are talking about two guys that stopped and said, "Let's help."
Is it reasonably to expect if you are trying to save someone from a burning vehicle, that you might be injured? So if you put yourself in that situation........ahhh nevermind.
-
Aug. 3, 2011 1:36 p.m. Travis_K SuperDork
Not that im sure which viewpoint i agree with, but before you stop to help in an emergency situation should you stop to consider if the person in danger put themself in that situation intentionally, and the potential health and financial risk to you if you help them?
-
Aug. 3, 2011 2:01 p.m. foxtrapper SuperDork
A person should always think. Always.
-
Aug. 3, 2011 2:09 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
I expect those I've rescued to spend the remainder of that life in service to me or until I see fit to release them from their servitude.
-
Aug. 3, 2011 2:11 p.m. Duke SuperDork
If I see a wrecked car that's on fire, I'm highly unlikely to suspect that the occupant created that situation on purpose. I don't really see how that could be determined ahead of time unless you heard her talk about killing herself and then immediately after, watched her accelerate and aim at the bridge abutment.
-
Aug. 3, 2011 2:13 p.m. poopshovel SuperDork
But when it comes to the protection of the people being aided, judges and lawyers look to a federally recognized tort law known as “the Rescue Doctrine,” Darling said.
It essentially says that, if the people being helped were negligent or reckless when they created real danger, there could be a chance to recover damages if the rescuers acted reasonably and can prove their injuries.
Sounds like a slam-dunk to me. Assuming everything in the article is true, she screamed for help, the guys obliged. If she wanted to die, she should've bought a gun, or drank herself to death. Whatever. Article says one of the guys was critically injured and had to spend weeks in ICU.
Who should cover that expense?
