- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 1
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
= misfeasance
= malfeasance
= nonfeasance
3 very important words! Usually covered in the first chapter of any paramedic book.
To Rescue, or not to Rescue - that is the question.
- Thread starter NudeDiver
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
3 very important words! Usually covered in the first chapter of any paramedic book.
AbyssalPlains
Contributor
This whole scenario is a great example of how hollywood movies create unnecessary fears in people. Cars don't explode, they might catch fire, yes, but they only explode in movies.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,802
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
The defendant should sue the move companies for making her think that cars (unlike scuba tanks) explode.
If you get even basic first aid training, you are taught to identify yourself and ask if you may help. If the response is no, leave them ALONE!! No matter how much they May need help. Once unconscious, then you are obligated to help. And you may not leave the scene once you identify yourself until further trained professional help arrives.
The woman had good intentions, but was really stupid, and will pay for it.
As a medic, first aid provider, rescue diver, divemaster, or instructor, you should PRACTICE the skills you learned at those levels. Why people think that a course they took 5 years ago and have not practiced the skills since, will make them capable in any rescue scenario, is beyond me.
All of my dive masters and instructors sit through medic and rescue courses every time it's taught at our lds. We offer free sit ins for those who are already certified and want to sit through to refresh.. If you don't practice what you learned, you will make mistakes that (forget the possible lawsuit), could cost someone their life unnecessarily.
The woman had good intentions, but was really stupid, and will pay for it.
As a medic, first aid provider, rescue diver, divemaster, or instructor, you should PRACTICE the skills you learned at those levels. Why people think that a course they took 5 years ago and have not practiced the skills since, will make them capable in any rescue scenario, is beyond me.
All of my dive masters and instructors sit through medic and rescue courses every time it's taught at our lds. We offer free sit ins for those who are already certified and want to sit through to refresh.. If you don't practice what you learned, you will make mistakes that (forget the possible lawsuit), could cost someone their life unnecessarily.
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 1
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Alot of good responses here... including a rather wordy one from me... sorry 'bout that.
Back to the OP... I definately WOULD make the effort to make a rescue underwater. If I saw the circumstances present themselves, and I felt I would be able to make a difference, I could not allow myself to standby without making an attempt at the rescue. I would rather try, and fail, than not try at all.
Back to the OP... I definately WOULD make the effort to make a rescue underwater. If I saw the circumstances present themselves, and I felt I would be able to make a difference, I could not allow myself to standby without making an attempt at the rescue. I would rather try, and fail, than not try at all.
rstofer
Contributor
A fully engulfed car is a sight to behold! From the point of view of a trapped passenger, I don't think it matters whether the car explodes or burns.
Richard
jaycanwk
Contributor
For those of you who have been stating in eariler posts how you will risk everything for a complete stranger no mattter what... well... if you have really thought that through, then good on you, for you are of stronger moral character than me I suppose, because I'm not so certain how certain I am in that situation.
Think very carefully what a $10 000 000 judgement AGAINST YOU would mean.
Do you have $10 000 000? No? So they will then proceed to take your house, your furniture, you car, and all of your retirment savings.
That's ok you say.. I saved a complete starngers life and I'm good with that. After all I can re-start my life and be good to go, again knowing that I helped someone.
Except that your house, furniture, car, and life savings that you worked so hard up till now to achieve didn't quite add upto $10 000 000. So every single paycheck you ever make from now on will be garnisheed quite heavily untill you die or the judgement has been paid in full. You will be capped at a very minimum personal income like probaly minimum wage level, and absoulutly anything extra you ever make beyond that will go to the court.
Unless it was a family member or I knew for reasonable certainty that I would'nt cause further harm , I'm not so certain how far I would go.
Think very carefully what a $10 000 000 judgement AGAINST YOU would mean.
Do you have $10 000 000? No? So they will then proceed to take your house, your furniture, you car, and all of your retirment savings.
That's ok you say.. I saved a complete starngers life and I'm good with that. After all I can re-start my life and be good to go, again knowing that I helped someone.
Except that your house, furniture, car, and life savings that you worked so hard up till now to achieve didn't quite add upto $10 000 000. So every single paycheck you ever make from now on will be garnisheed quite heavily untill you die or the judgement has been paid in full. You will be capped at a very minimum personal income like probaly minimum wage level, and absoulutly anything extra you ever make beyond that will go to the court.
Unless it was a family member or I knew for reasonable certainty that I would'nt cause further harm , I'm not so certain how far I would go.
There are specifics to the Good Sam Law and it's protection. My understanding is the guy who pulled her out was intoxicated. One of the criteria for Good Sam is "not acting negligently" and "not performing a skill in which you are not qualified". Even if a person is unconcious, you still need to ask for permission to help them. If a person says no, you are not covered under the Good Sam law period. In the PADI EFR class they give specific instances and requirements to be covered under the Good Sam law for both adults and children.
It is unfortunate that we live in a sue happy society.
It is unfortunate that we live in a sue happy society.
Lucy's Diver
Contributor
Like many, in your desire to blame lawyers and the legal system you have chosen to ignore the facts.
First, you can be sued for anything. ANYTHING. Suits with no merit at the outset get dismissed, but its still money out of your pocket to defend yourself.
Second, in this particular case the "rescuers" did just about everything they could to cause further injury. They displayed gross negligence. That means they were stupid beyond any normal degree of stupidity. See, in the real legal system, instead of the pretend one most people think they live in, plaintiffs actually have to prove something, they don't just get to ruin your life without actual proof. In this case, they would have to prove your actions were grossly negligent. Gross engligence is essentially one small step from outright assault.
So unless you are going to pull someone out of a car by their head despite their demands to be left alone due to their serious neck pain, you might just be OK. If you are indeed the type of person who would pull someone with an obvious neck injury around by the head you probably should never leave your house.
Similar threads
