Sued For Rescuing Someone Form A Car Crash

[Tempus Fugit]

with friends like that, who needs enemies

[immortalpuppet]

I saw a bloke get ran over on the prom a couple of years back, i ran over and did the best i could to clear his airway (most of his teeth had shattered.) and keep him breathing in the hope that he didnt bleed to death from his crushing injuries.

 

To be fair it was not really complicated and some other people came over to help, the area was calm and the medics arrived and i went to the hospital with the bloke. The police took a statment and he did mention if i was covered by any organisation to give first aid, i explained that had been given regular training but its no longer valid. The policeman said in not so many words that if anything went wrong then i could be sued (it was a big "could")

 

its a farce and i dont think that this should put anyone off helping other people. As for the Ambulance chasers that try and make money off sueing the good smaritan, well i hope i get chance to see them in an accident because i will give them the fingers as i walk past them.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I saw a bloke get ran over on the prom a couple of years back, i ran over and did the best i could to clear his airway (most of his teeth had shattered.) and keep him breathing in the hope that he didnt bleed to death from his crushing injuries.

 

To be fair it was not really complicated and some other people came over to help, the area was calm and the medics arrived and i went to the hospital with the bloke. The police took a statment and he did mention if i was covered by any organisation to give first aid, i explained that had been given regular training but its no longer valid. The policeman said in not so many words that if anything went wrong then i could be sued (it was a big "could")

 

its a farce and i dont think that this should put anyone off helping other people. As for the Ambulance chasers that try and make money off sueing the good smaritan, well i hope i get chance to see them in an accident because i will give them the fingers as i walk past them.

 

You could have been the one who saved his life. It's shocking when some lowlife wants to sue. I mean, what would have happened if an ambulance took longer to get there and you were pretty much on your own.

[Stavros]

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.

 

But she wasn't left in the car where it didn't bust into flames and someone with medical experience might have had the opportunity to get her out of the car without paralising her for the rest of her natural life. Instead, some stupid woman didn't think about the possible consequences of her actions and just yanked the woman out of the car. Thus removing any slight possible for a normal quality life. Was the woman in the car conscious? If so, was she consulted by the other woman before being hauled out?

 

I agree that there are many possible circumstances that would need to be considered in this case and I think that is why it is going to court to be decided. I would also say that I think that this is a bad example of what to do if you want to be a samaritan. Always remember when faced with a difficult situation that you firstly need to remain calm and then go through the first steps to first aid which is, of course the 'ABC' Airway, Breathing and Circulation. Do this before doing anything else unless you genuienly believe that the victim is in imminent danger. Always try to check that there are no electricity cables or other flamable substances before attempting any rescue that would or could endanger you or other people. (i.e. don't make it even more difficult for the emergency services to have to remove you as well as victim 'A') A car that's just crashed into a lamp post at 45 mph will probably have steam coming out of the radiator and possibly some smoke from the engine but it would be extremely rare for it to just bust into flames. However, ruthlessly pulling someone out of vehicle and paralising them for life might not get you a thank you when they might have preferred the alternative and faced the flames.

 

Money has nothing to do with it apart from perhaps trying to compensate a woman that will probably never work, socialise, play sport, enjoy active holidays and have to pay for an 'American' health care for the remainder of her natural life. That's the value of money in that society.

[manxy]

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.

 

But she wasn't left in the car where it didn't bust into flames and someone with medical experience might have had the opportunity to get her out of the car without paralising her for the rest of her natural life. Instead, some stupid woman didn't think about the possible consequences of her actions and just yanked the woman out of the car. Thus removing any slight possible for a normal quality life. Was the woman in the car conscious? If so, was she consulted by the other woman before being hauled out?

 

I agree that there are many possible circumstances that would need to be considered in this case and I think that is why it is going to court to be decided. I would also say that I think that this is a bad example of what to do if you want to be a samaritan. Always remember when faced with a difficult situation that you firstly need to remain calm and then go through the first steps to first aid which is, of course the 'ABC' Airway, Breathing and Circulation. Do this before doing anything else unless you genuienly believe that the victim is in imminent danger. Always try to check that there are no electricity cables or other flamable substances before attempting any rescue that would or could endanger you or other people. (i.e. don't make it even more difficult for the emergency services to have to remove you as well as victim 'A') A car that's just crashed into a lamp post at 45 mph will probably have steam coming out of the radiator and possibly some smoke from the engine but it would be extremely rare for it to just bust into flames. However, ruthlessly pulling someone out of vehicle and paralising them for life might not get you a thank you when they might have preferred the alternative and faced the flames.

 

Money has nothing to do with it apart from perhaps trying to compensate a woman that will probably never work, socialise, play sport, enjoy active holidays and have to pay for an 'American' health care for the remainder of her natural life. That's the value of money in that society.

 

It's always great knowing in hindsight what would be the best way to do anything, but I don't have a crystal ball and would do what I think is best at that time to save a life, which will never be right if I was to read off a how to save a person in this predicament situation. Can anyone say different, that they'd do what they think is best and would try to save that person in the way that happens?

There's been many mentions of people on these forums who have stated about making instant decisions and in this case, the person who made this judgment call, for the bestest of reasons, has unfortunately made the wrong decision on the day for the bestest of reasons. Who knows why they did it, maybe they saw something that 'US' the readers didn't and who can tell? Maybe we should sign something or have a sticker that says, 'IF I HAVE AN ACCIDENT, I WILL SUE THE PERSON IF THINGS GO WRONG!' That way, they can die knowing that no-one will save them cause if they make a mistake, they will be sued. (Whether I would feel ok on their judgement call, is another issue, but at least they made the judgement call for me and I would know the risks)

America seems to have some parts of society that says 'sue anything if you can whenever you can', in their get rich quick schemes, which is rather vulgar and sickening to me and I know that some people will argue the toss, but thats my opinion. (Merry Xmas)

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

 

But she wasn't left in the car where it didn't bust into flames and someone with medical experience might have had the opportunity to get her out of the car without paralising her for the rest of her natural life. Instead, some stupid woman didn't think about the possible consequences of her actions and just yanked the woman out of the car. Thus removing any slight possible for a normal quality life. Was the woman in the car conscious? If so, was she consulted by the other woman before being hauled out?

 

I agree that there are many possible circumstances that would need to be considered in this case and I think that is why it is going to court to be decided. I would also say that I think that this is a bad example of what to do if you want to be a samaritan. Always remember when faced with a difficult situation that you firstly need to remain calm and then go through the first steps to first aid which is, of course the 'ABC' Airway, Breathing and Circulation. Do this before doing anything else unless you genuienly believe that the victim is in imminent danger. Always try to check that there are no electricity cables or other flamable substances before attempting any rescue that would or could endanger you or other people. (i.e. don't make it even more difficult for the emergency services to have to remove you as well as victim 'A') A car that's just crashed into a lamp post at 45 mph will probably have steam coming out of the radiator and possibly some smoke from the engine but it would be extremely rare for it to just bust into flames. However, ruthlessly pulling someone out of vehicle and paralising them for life might not get you a thank you when they might have preferred the alternative and faced the flames.

 

I recognie everything you are saying. It is only the fact that the intentions of the woman pulling her out of the war were not malicious or planned to cause harm. It could have been a stupid decision. But the injured woman wants to sue so that she can take money, and effectively punish, this other woman for making this decision. I don't think it is right considering the intent

 

 

Money has nothing to do with it apart from perhaps trying to compensate a woman that will probably never work, socialise, play sport, enjoy active holidays and have to pay for an 'American' health care for the remainder of her natural life. That's the value of money in that society.

 

I can see what you mean in terms of needing the money for healthcare payments as I don't know what sort of facility is there to support such people, but doubt there is a good one. But before I criticise the idea of compensating one person by taking from the other, does money really make a big different in terms of compensation? Is it really a way of having the satisfaction of punishing the other person by taking their money or does a bit of money offer some recognition of the impact on the 'claimant'.