- #1
gravenewworld
- 1,132
- 26
What is this country coming to?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-good-samaritan19-2008dec19,0,4033454.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-good-samaritan19-2008dec19,0,4033454.story
Hurkyl said:Of course CA law allows good samaritans to be sued -- and it should. Lots of bad things can be done with good intentions.
The relevant question is whether or not this good samaritan did something that merits being sued.
In this particular case, if the car had been on fire, it may have helped the good samaritan's case.Oh you want me to help you out of that burning car wreckage? Wait hold on, can you sign this waiver for me first?
russ_watters said:Hurkyl is absolutely right: people need to be held responsible for their actions. Proper motivation should not absolve someone of responsibility for causing unnecessary harm. In this particular case, if the car had been on fire, it may have helped the good samaritan's case.
With smoke and liquid, is this perhaps excused action?Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."
...not? You're arguing against a known outcome! This isn't hypothetical, it actually happened! The car was not on fire and the victim is paralyzed! We know that moving her was a mistake!gravenewworld said:So basically, the samaritan should have waited until the car was on fire to act accordingly. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
A reasonable person would assume a car would catch fire? Really? I recognize that people believe what they see in movies, but that doesn't make it any less wrong: cars do not typically catch fire after a crash. It is actually exceedingly rare.If a reasonable person could assume that a car is about to catch fire after an accident then why should they have to wait until the fire actually happens?
That's probably pretty important to the ruling in this case. I'm guessing since the other people involved testified they didn't see it, it was decided that the risk was not credible.OAQfirst said:From gravenewworld's link:
With smoke and liquid, is this perhaps excused action?
Edit: On the other hand, this is testimony after the fact.
A reasonable person is basically defined as an idiot.russ_watters said:A reasonable person would assume a car would catch fire? Really? I recognize that people believe what they see in movies, but that doesn't make it any less wrong: cars do not typically catch fire after a crash. It is actually exceedingly rare.
No. Ordinary and reasonable are not the same thing. Just because ordinary people are idiots, that does not absolve them of the responsibility to be reasonable.mgb_phys said:A reasonable person is basically defined as an idiot.
Ordinary people DO assume that cars immediately burst into flames because that is what is seen on TV. All it needs is for the person to believe that the car is about to explode for it to be justified.
Reasonable in this case has a very specific legal meaning - I was just wondering if the majority of the population believed it to be true does that make the behaviour reasonable?WarPhalange said:Reasonable =/= excusable.
Willful misinterpretation of what we're saying? How would you feel if some well-meaning idiot did something stupid and crippled you for life? That's what such laws are meant to protect you from.JasonRox said:America
Everyone for themselves.
Thus the benefit of the media picking up such stories -- to educate the common man!WarPhalange said:A well-meaning idiot probably won't know about a law like this and will do something stupid anyway.
Hurkyl said:Willful misinterpretation of what we're saying? How would you feel if some well-meaning idiot did something stupid and crippled you for life?
Hurkyl said:Willful misinterpretation of what we're saying? How would you feel if some well-meaning idiot did something stupid and crippled you for life? That's what such laws are meant to protect you from.
(I do not assert that the case in the original post involved a well-meaning idiot doing something stupid)
Pointing out problems with one extreme doesn't negate the problems with the other extreme.misgfool said:Even if a person is not an idiot, has the training and knows how to help, he/she will not help because of the liability. As an non-idiot he/she knows that he/she may make a little mistake by accident while helping. Therefore no rational person will help anyone anymore and result is everyone for themselves.
Certainly not! Yikes, how could you think such a thing!? What are you doing posting on a science forum if you believe that?!mgb_phys said:If the majority believe that does it become reasonable behaviour?
Someone who is trained should also be trained to know the limits of the care they are allowed to provide and act accordingly, mitigating the potential for liability.misgfool said:Even if a person is not an idiot, has the training and knows how to help, he/she will not help because of the liability. As an non-idiot he/she knows that he/she may make a little mistake by accident while helping. Therefore no rational person will help anyone anymore and result is everyone for themselves.
russ_watters said:if people never act to yank people out of a car unless the flames are already licking the window, that's a good thing because it is so rare that cars actually burst into flames.
russ_watters said:...not? You're arguing against a known outcome! This isn't hypothetical, it actually happened! The car was not on fire and the victim is paralyzed! We know that moving her was a mistake! A reasonable person would assume a car would catch fire? Really? I recognize that people believe what they see in movies, but that doesn't make it any less wrong: cars do not typically catch fire after a crash. It is actually exceedingly rare.
You're not thinking rationally here. This sounds bad to you, so you consider it bad. Put some thought into it. Try to connect some logic (answer Hurkyl's question). You'll realize it doesn't work.