Jump to content

Sued For Rescuing Someone Form A Car Crash


John

Recommended Posts

So glad that no win no fee is illegal in the IOM

 

Not quite sure what that has got to do with something that happened in Los Angeles.

 

Without knowing all of the facts, it has to be quite difficult to be able to make a decision. I believe that we on the Isle of Man have received the benefit of knowing that if say a motorcyclist is involved in an accident, you don't rush over and take his helmet off etc. Moving an injured person should only be done in an emergency and preferably by someone with first aid or medical experience.

 

It appears that this woman / good samaritan, was following her friend at approximately 45 miles an hour when the other woman crashed into a lamp post. I've not seen the scene of the accident or had any significant facts about it but I do find it hard to believe that there was reason to believe that there was a serious risk of the vehicle catching fire. American vehicles have safety ratings too and I doubt they would be allowed to let cars be sold if they just burst into flames when they hit lamp posts.

 

The ruling on liability is for medical treatment. If, for example, she were to administer CPR to the woman, that would probably be classed as providing medical assistance but possibly recklessly pulling someone out of a vehicle and potentially causing permanent disability should be the last course of action.

 

This is a court deciding if she has a possibility of taking legal action against someone that may have disabled her forever. This is not about her actually winning the case or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact we don't have No win No fee on the Island IMO does affect the number of liability cases we do or don't have, ok maybe the story was not quite about Liability Claims, but it just re-inforced my feelings.

 

But I suppose the Moral is then that if you go to the States you have to be damn careful what you do or don't do in the case of an accident

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact we don't have No win No fee on the Island IMO does affect the number of liability cases we do or don't have, ok maybe the story was not quite about Liability Claims, but it just re-inforced my feelings.

 

Maybe you should ask 'your local broker' about the legal expenses insurances they provide with motor and household policies..... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you probably had more common sense than to just drag them out of the car. Presumably, you ensured that they were as safe and as comfortable as possible and you wouldn't have moved them unless you thought that they were in imminent danger or that they could possibly have a head, back or neck injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it hard to believe that there was reason to believe that there was a serious risk of the vehicle catching fire. American vehicles have safety ratings too and I doubt they would be allowed to let cars be sold if they just burst into flames when they hit lamp posts.

Hollywood. A car crashes in an action film, it bursts into flames more often than not. This could have been what motivated her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So glad that no win no fee is illegal in the IOM

 

Not quite sure what that has got to do with something that happened in Los Angeles.

 

Without knowing all of the facts, it has to be quite difficult to be able to make a decision. I believe that we on the Isle of Man have received the benefit of knowing that if say a motorcyclist is involved in an accident, you don't rush over and take his helmet off etc. Moving an injured person should only be done in an emergency and preferably by someone with first aid or medical experience.

 

It appears that this woman / good samaritan, was following her friend at approximately 45 miles an hour when the other woman crashed into a lamp post. I've not seen the scene of the accident or had any significant facts about it but I do find it hard to believe that there was reason to believe that there was a serious risk of the vehicle catching fire. American vehicles have safety ratings too and I doubt they would be allowed to let cars be sold if they just burst into flames when they hit lamp posts.

 

The ruling on liability is for medical treatment. If, for example, she were to administer CPR to the woman, that would probably be classed as providing medical assistance but possibly recklessly pulling someone out of a vehicle and potentially causing permanent disability should be the last course of action.

 

This is a court deciding if she has a possibility of taking legal action against someone that may have disabled her forever. This is not about her actually winning the case or not.

 

Aside from whether you CAN be sued or not, why did this person pull the other out of the car? I would suppose it was because that person believed they were protecting or helping the trapped person. It was not done maliciously and if you even thought in the slightest that the car might catch fire you would have a serious concern for getting that person out.

Anyway, it shows the value of money in society. Maybe she should have been left in the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the explanation here is that the Good Samaritan, like many Americans, would have had public liability insurance. Such policies only pay out when the holder has been found legally liable. Ergo: Crash Victim sues GS.

 

With no insurance, it might have been a different story.

 

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...