To Rescue, or not to Rescue - that is the question.

[NudeDiver]

Since we are dredging up paranoid conspiracy theories, remember that we know his opponent wasn't born in the US.

Sure he was. I voted for Bob Barr - born in Iowa.

Just curious where you guys are getting the tinfoil for your hats.

A secure source, which I am not at liberty to discuss.

 

[J.R.]

Wow... this has gotten entertaining... ya'll don't do too much until I get back from Ice Diving sometime Sunday... don't wanna' miss nothing...

Oh... and the Canal Zone was considered U.S. territory... but that DOES raise another question... is a kid born "C-section" a "natural birth"... Darn... now that the "World New" tabloid is outta' business we'll probably never know.

... pass the tinfoil...

 

[mikemill]

Since we are dredging up paranoid conspiracy theories, remember that we know his opponent wasn't born in the US. :mooner:

Just curious where you guys are getting the tinfoil for your hats. You know the stuff at the grocery stores is specially tuned to let the guvamint spy on your thoughts, right?

I mine the raw materials and make my own. With the various degrees my friends and I have we are able to thwart the shadow government that is really controlling things.

:tinfoil:

 

[Lucy's Diver]

What ground you down is your interpretation of cases whose facts were imparted to you by, at best, a media machine looking for viewership (since they exists not really to report facts but generate ad revenue) or, at worst, a series of people with agendas reporting their distorted version of evnets to you, who gets to believe what you want to beleive.

The law does exist to make us a better society. It is reasonably good at it. It is not good at press releases.

Find me a single case - the original document as reported in caselaw - supporting your notion that a well intended rescuer engaging in a reasonable standard of care will have their house taken away.

I agree entirely. I, and many other people I know, will not even stop to have friendly talk to kids in the neighborhood, for fear of being accused of any number of things. Who knows what witnesses of such an incident will say or do - and as we know, in today's hyper-viligent society, all it takes is a mere accusation of something to ruin your life. So when little Johnny says "hello" or falls on his bike, or is wandering around looking lost, I'm just going to mind my own damned business. Unnecessary interactions with children - who - by the way, are instilled with fear at every turn when they are told "don't talk to strangers" and to be wary of everyone? No thanks. It's just not worth the risk. This is the training I have received from society.

 

[BWDscott]

I'll tune into CNN or BBC for my hijackings... this thread has been beaten to death... time for someone to consider a lawsuit!

I don't deal well with paranoia... cya all in the water! I'm outtahere............

 

[rstofer]

The law does exist to make us a better society. It is reasonably good at it. It is not good at press releases.

Find me a single case - the original document as reported in caselaw - supporting your notion that a well intended rescuer engaging in a reasonable standard of care will have their house taken away.

It doesn't matter if the case is ultimately thrown out if your cost of defense bankrupts you. What makes you think your homeowner's insurance will cover your costs?

What the California Supreme Court did is create a lawyer full-employment act. Now that there is even a remote chance of successfully suing a good samaritan, there will be a flood of lawsuits. Even if the vast majority are dismissed, lawyers will still get rich on the backs of those trying to defend themselves after doing the right thing.

It doesn't matter if there were no prior cases, what matters is how many cases are filed going forward. The defense costs start right after filing and continue as far as the case goes. Win, lose or draw on the merits, the defendant always loses.

Now, if we were to outlaw contingency cases, both sides would be equal. The plaintiff would actually have something to lose in bringing suit against a good samaritan. But we all know the lawyers will never let that happen. Contingency cases are the life-blood of ambulance chasers.

Richard

 

[Lucy's Diver]

Your analysis is replete with gross mis-statements of the law and displays a basic misunderstanding of how the system works. There is always a chance of suing a good samaritan - the law does not allow one to escape incredibly stupid action by crying "good smaritan, good samaritan!" This was so before and after the case at issue. In any case in which a good smaritan is alleged to have displayed gross negligence litigation will ensue in order to prove that up. What good smaritan laws do are protect people who behave reasonably, not people who behave incredibly stupidly. Additionally, the law apart form good samaritan protections demands only reasonable action.

You apparently think contingency cases are a "oh might as well" proposition. Would your analysis change if you knew that contingency agreements (at least in the jurisidctions I am aware of) can only cover legal fees, not costs; and once a case enters discovery costs are substantial - travel, court reporter fees for depositions, expert witnesses, etc. Not exaclty the free ride you apparently believe in. Additionally, you paint a picture of incedibly expensive lawsuits. Well, if that is true and contingency cases were outlawed then the rich always win, whichever side they are on.

I still note the lack of actual caselaw. All we have left is, frankly, the paranoid speculation of people who have probably never seen the inside of a court room, much less gone to law school.

It doesn't matter if the case is ultimately thrown out if your cost of defense bankrupts you. What makes you think your homeowner's insurance will cover your costs?

What the California Supreme Court did is create a lawyer full-employment act. Now that there is even a remote chance of successfully suing a good samaritan, there will be a flood of lawsuits. Even if the vast majority are dismissed, lawyers will still get rich on the backs of those trying to defend themselves after doing the right thing.

It doesn't matter if there were no prior cases, what matters is how many cases are filed going forward. The defense costs start right after filing and continue as far as the case goes. Win, lose or draw on the merits, the defendant always loses.

Now, if we were to outlaw contingency cases, both sides would be equal. The plaintiff would actually have something to lose in bringing suit against a good samaritan. But we all know the lawyers will never let that happen. Contingency cases are the life-blood of ambulance chasers.

Richard

 

[NudeDiver]

Find me a single case - the original document as reported in caselaw - supporting your notion that a well intended rescuer engaging in a reasonable standard of care will have their house taken away.

Show me a single post where I said that's what would happen.

 

[Thalassamania]

There is a general misunderstanding of the economics of contingency cases. There are all sort of expenses that are incumbent upon the potential plantiff. The only thing that is a free ride (so to speak) is the attorney's hourly billings.

 

[Lucy's Diver]

Show me a single post where I said that's what would happen.

That question is an irrelevant distraction. You assert a position. I am asking you to find specific facts to back up that position. You will not. I would assert this is because you cannot.

The bottom line is that I, having actually had a wee bit of experience in the legal realm, and having a reasonable set of moral values, will not sit back and made ill informed rationalizations about why I should not help in the face of an emergency. I am going to help within my skill and training and within the bounds of reasonableness. I have indeed done so on more than one occasion and have somehow managed to escape the vultureous claws of the horrid legal system. In one incident, litigation ensued - but, astoundingly, the dead person's family sued only the party most directly at fault for their child's death, and somehow overlooked the obvious deep money targets such as myself (19 at the time) and other rescuers, (both professional and non professional), who gave their kid CPR and transported him to the waiting ambulance.