'Good Samaritan' can be sued after pulling friend from car wreckage

reply to post by Fuggle


I could be wrong here, but I think that if there's reason to believe that the car's going to explode that takes precedence.

In general, it's a terrible idea to move injured people without the proper training and bracing.

What? Seriously, what?!

She's bringing up charges because her friend thought her life was in danger and did what she could to save her life?

That is unbelievable. This idiot should be thanking her friend for risking her life and caring enough to want to save hers!

The nerve of some people! Honestly, what some low life scumbags will do for a buck or two!

Peace,
FK

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Seems that the NWO is conditioning us to be indifferent to the blight of our neighbours.

I don't imagine the NWO as being some unidentified elite controlling our lives but rather governments and institutions that no longer regard feigning the existence of free societies as necessary now that the threat of communism no longer exists.

[edit on 053131p://pm3107 by masonwatcher]

The NWO may be responsible for the court's decision; however, in my opinion the fault lies with the individual who is suing her "friend" (and I use that term very loosely) because she attempted to save her life.

I too as the OP have quite a bit of training in emergency medical procedures from my time in the military. As part of a search and rescue team, I was trained to deal with many emergency situations; however, just as the OP I will not risk my family's well being or financial security in order to be sued for trying to help someone.

I would highly recommend to the citizens of California that they do something about this, even if that means protests or other means of bringing public attention to this issue. If they do not, they have damned themselves to the possible fate that awaits them if something similar happens to themselves.

I just got a strange idea and I may just implement it. I am going to print up a few pages of consent forms to provide emergency medical assistance or services be they of a medical nature or as in this case a need to secure safety. If the person is unconscious or incoherent, I suppose they will have to wait for the E.M.T.'s, the fire department or police. I would absolutely hate to sit there and watch someone die, but I am not going to jeopardize my own family for some fool who may decide to sue me later on when they realize they can get "something for nothing."

Pitiful that it has to happen this way; however mankind's own greed and selfishness will dictate the course of the future, and the future in this case looks mighty bleak.

I think this woman ought to be recognized for her greed by the whole community where she lives, people should call her house, her parents, her friends (if she has any left), and her place of employment and show her for the selfish, greedy jerk that she is. Not to mention thanking her for single handily making every other citizen at risk to die for lack of emergency help out of the fear that she has instilled in anyone who may have otherwise been happy to help someone in grave danger.

Chalk another one up for ignorance and greed.

Good guys 1 - Bad guys 10,000,000

well... I'm happy that everyone is safe. I understand wanting to take care of each other. I'm really hopin' that everyone around me are doing okay. I love ya guys

reply to post by djvexd
Maybe this is a good time to follow Bill Clintons "Dont ask Dont tell policy!"I suggest render what assistance you can....give no name and leave the scene as soon as possible! Its a shame that society has come to this!

Originally posted by Fuggle

I thought it was as about as common as common knowledge can be that untrained people should never pull people from car wrecks because they are likely to aggravate any injuries.

If someone pulled me from a wreck, causing further injury to me, I'd be pretty pissed off.

[edit on 20/12/08 by Fuggle]

*Note to self:

If you ever see this guy trapped in a car dying, do not help him, he is a liability.*

Thanks for the info chief.

reply to post by DarrylGalasso


I was thinking the exact same thing. If I see a car wreck or some other type of accident, I won't help out. I guess you could look at it as survival of the fittest. "Well you know, I could help ya, but you know, people tend to sue people that help them in this state. Yeah your seat-belt's stuck? Dunno what to tell ya about that. Ouch... that fire sure must hurt....."

Chrono

I hate that people are so effing stupid that we try to punish a person for helping someone involved in a car crash.

This woman who is sueing should be ashamed of her self, if I ever cross paths with her I would spit in her face. Im sick of people like her, they are disgusting.

Its things like this that make me lose faith in humanity.

reply to post by FredT


Hard to comment when they don't say how it contributed to his friend's injuries.

Sounds like someone just wanted a lawsuit, and found an easy target - whom was their own friend.

The reason they say not to do anything is to prevent paralyzing the victim in the event they have a spinal injury.

If they aren't paralyzed, and if they can recover, they are just ungrateful.

So if I'm reading correctly, because the person, according to the Good Samaritan Law, wasn't actually administering any sort of "medical aid" that's why the liability charges can stick. So if she had also done something like take the person's pulse and listen for the breathing and/or tried to brace the whatever-was-injured - she'd be exempt from being sued, because these actions would be considered "medical aid" and would fall under the Good Samaritan Law, which deals *solely* with medical aid. That's what the one lawyer meant about "at least put on a band-aid" joke? I find it interesting that pulling a person away from a potentially exploding vehicle doesn't constitute as administering "medical aid" because I recall from First Aid training that while you should almost never move an injured person, First Aid rules state you do have to get the person away from any dangers if they exist. e.g. if a person has fallen into a pool, been submerged in water and is unconscious - you have to get them to flat land first (grass, sidewalk) before you attempt to check airway, breathing, circulation, etc. If a person has been hit by a car and is laying in the middle of the highway with tractor trailers coming from both directions, it would be wise to drag them to the side of the road first before beginning First Aid. Common sense, no?

reply to post by Yoda411


The man pulled her out of the car because he was afraid it would catch fire and after it catches fire they wouldnt be able to get her out in time. Thats a very real very dangerous situation too, and instead of being thankful she said she would have been better off if he left her there.

I wish that he had left her and that the car would have burst into flames, one less POS.

Simply ridiculous. Lawsuits have gone out of control. It seems that people are suing each other for everything and anything. I blame this on the over-abundance of lawyers. They're really pushing the limits of the legal system. How much money is wasted yearly on these ridiculous cases? The sad part is that many of these cases, that seem so obviously frivolous to you and I, somehow have enough legal merit to be heard in front of a judge.

I read the first post and all i can say is no lawyer was out of pocket and the end of this

reply to post by Fuggle


Please supply a picture of yourself so that in the god forbid event you have an accident and the car is about to catch fire I will be able to recognize you and just let you burn.

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Seems that the NWO is conditioning us to be indifferent to the blight of our neighbours.

I don't imagine the NWO as being some unidentified elite controlling our lives but rather governments and institutions that no longer regard feigning the existence of free societies as necessary now that the threat of communism no longer exists.

[edit on 053131p://pm3107 by masonwatcher]

I certainly agree in large part to this assessment. More and more we are being controlled as to what we can and cannot do.

It's not a question of preventing the untrained from doing harm, after all aren't the sheeple fed a constant diet of cop and hospital dramas?

This is more about keeping us dumbed down; as children unqualified and untrustworthy. As long as we are prevented from taking responsibility and taking action our sense of community and belonging will be further eroded in deference to the state.

Originally posted by Fuggle
If someone pulled me from a wreck, causing further injury to me, I'd be pretty pissed off.

No worries at all.

We can all watch you burn up when the car catches fire.

Better yet, we'll all just walk away and disappear, so we won't be sued.

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by Fuggle

 

I could be wrong here, but I think that if there's reason to believe that the car's going to explode that takes precedence.

In general, it's a terrible idea to move injured people without the proper training and bracing.

That is exactly what I was taught by every fire-fighter I know. You don't try to move a person who was in a car wreck. In-fact you should try to have them relax and stay still. This all changes if you think the car will go up in flames. If you see any flames or an inordinate amount of smoke then you should carefully move the person a safe distance away from the vehicle.

If you think there is a fire, it is better to have those few extra seconds to move the person with restraint and control. If you don't get them out early and the car goes up, then you must yank the person out of the car without as much regard for their position (time by the fire being the killer at that point).

Originally posted by FredT
Because of this ruling we are now not allowed to render aid if we come accross an accident and do not have a patient in the ambulance. The EMT's are requred to stop but the two highest trained life support people are not getting out of the rig as the hospital does not want the liability exposure

Well, we are still allowed, but the GSL doesn't protect liability, its on you, and it comes down to if the person wants to sue or not. This ties into the person being rescued perspective. And honestly it then comes down to life over limb, and whether or not they would do the same thing if they were switched roles.

THIS is the kind of thing that will stop people doing selfless actions that involve risk.

There was a case sometime ago in which someone sued because they were not breathing, got CPR and had some ribs broken (which is fairly common).
So he turned around the sued the guy.

I blame hollywood for all this "I'll sue you" crap, whatever happened to "thanks" or "I appreciate that".
Instead, if you do the right thing you could be sued!

What the hell!!!

What would have happened if the car had burst into flames and the person who had wanted to pull the driver from the car stood there and did not act?
Would that have gone down as an omission?

In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").