Guest Hal Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/08/01/2-men-suing-woman-they-saved.html Cliffs: 2 guys save woman from burning car. Now they are suing because the accident was her fault and they got hurt saving her.:dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWW$HEEET Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Sounds like her plan was...... 5POILED 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Sounds like her plan was...... 5POILED LMAO +1 for you good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh8sti Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Wow.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturg1647545502 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Interesting case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 LOL WUT?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 In the USA, the rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that if a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that victim. This doctrine was originally created in case law by Wagner v. International Railway[1], 232 N.Y. 176 (1926), in which Justice Cardozo stated "Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief [...] The emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had." Essentially it means that the rescuer can recover damages from a defendant when the rescuer is injured rescuing someone. The defendant is usually negligent in causing the accident to occur. Other cases have occurred where the plaintiff is injured rescuing the defendant and is able to collect damages. In Wagner v. International Railway, riders on the defendant's trains were allowed to walk between cars while the train was moving. In one incident, a rider fell through the cars. The plaintiff, trying to help the fallen rider, was injured himself. The court found the defendant liable because of negligence to allow riders to walk between cars while the train was moving. Essentially, in its pure form the Rescue Doctrine boils down to 4 main elements - all of which must be met in order to bring it to bear for the person asserting its privilege. 1. There must be peril or the appearance of peril to a third party, caused by the defendant. 2. That peril or appearance of peril must be imminent 3. A reasonable person would recognize the peril or appearance of peril and the plaintiff must also have actually recognized it. 4. The plaintiff must have exercised reasonable care in effecting the rescue. I guess the story is that she was trying to commit suicide, making her negligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verse Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 I guess the story is that she was trying to commit suicide, making her negligent. Makes sense. It'd piss me off if it messed me up trying to rescue a spoiled, rich girls failed suicide attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordell Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 So would I be in trouble if I just stood there and watched? Serious question, this world is full of stupid laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturg1647545502 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 So would I be in trouble if I just stood there and watched? Serious question, this world is full of stupid laws. Not in this state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchy chan Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 So would I be in trouble if I just stood there and watched? Serious question, this world is full of stupid laws. I didn't read the story, but isn't that how seinfield ended? They just stood and watch someone without helping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 The world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Sounds like her plan was...... 5POILED Cue the sunglass removal and "YEAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Sounds like they could of easily died in the rescue, imagine if one had gotten caught on something. Go right ahead and sue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bruh Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 id sue for more than $25000 :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 id sue for more than $25000 :dumb: Maybe they decided to sue for a reasonable amount which has some correlation with actual damages? EDIT: Just read the article... ...are asking for damages of at least $25,000 each, a standard starting point in civil lawsuits. Cliffs: 2 guys save woman from burning car. Now they are suing because the accident was her fault and they got hurt saving her.:dumb: After reading what LJ posted, isn't there a (big) difference between the accident being her fault (she crashed on 'accident') and her fault by negligence (she crashed on purpose or by some act of negligence i.e. knew her car was not in a safe drive-able condition)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Sounds like they could of easily died in the rescue, imagine if one had gotten caught on something. Go right ahead and sue. Maybe next time they won't try to climb into a burning car. :dumb: I don't care if she was at fault, they had a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Maybe next time they won't try to climb into a burning car. :dumb: I don't care if she was at fault, they had a choice. At some point a decent human being has compassion and the desire to help their fellow man. I would have rushed in without a second thought about my life. If there is a chance no matter how slim, could you live with yourself knowing you let someone die? I couldn't. Don't even try to point out it was a suicide attempt. We all know hind sight is 20/20. In the moment you know there is a burning car and a woman screaming for help. nothing more nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 At some point a decent human being has compassion and the desire to help their fellow man. I would have rushed in without a second thought about my life. If there is a chance no matter how slim, could you live with yourself knowing you let someone die? I couldn't. Don't even try to point out it was a suicide attempt. We all know hind sight is 20/20. In the moment you know there is a burning car and a woman screaming for help. nothing more nothing less. I would help her, but I wouldn't sue after getting hurt doing it. They knew when they decided to enter a burning car that they could be hurt. To me, that means liability is gone. If you have the balls to do something, you need to have the balls to live with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturg1647545502 Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 a reaction is not a decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 I would help her, but I wouldn't sue after getting hurt doing it. They knew when they decided to enter a burning car that they could be hurt. To me, that means liability is gone. If you have the balls to do something, you need to have the balls to live with it. I have to agree. Whatever your dumbass action is, my reaction is my own. KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 a reaction is not a decision Are you trying to say that stopping your truck, searching for a burning car, breaking the window with a tire iron you probably had to find, searching the car for additional passengers, and getting the woman out, was just a reaction? They didn't make a choice to do what they did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Are you trying to say that stopping your truck, searching for a burning car, breaking the window with a tire iron you probably had to find, searching the car for additional passengers, and getting the woman out, was just a reaction? They didn't make a choice to do what they did? Crazy shit happens when you have an adrenaline dump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Crazy shit happens when you have an adrenaline dump +1000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturg1647545502 Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Are you trying to say that stopping your truck, searching for a burning car, breaking the window with a tire iron you probably had to find, searching the car for additional passengers, and getting the woman out, was just a reaction? They didn't make a choice to do what they did? Not to s my own d but i've entered working structure fires with reported traps with out any thing on but my duty shirt, duty pants, boots and a ball cap on.. I was riding the medic and made it first on scene before any of our fire apparatus. Our PD and Sheriffs are often on scene before the FD is and they will run in to make sure no ones passed out inside if they can make it in. Its 100% against our departments policy, was stupid and got in trouble. and i didn't think about it for a second(which was obviously the problem) Thet only reason i bring this up is that I now have to decide and restrain myself from reacting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.