Posted on 12/19/2008 9:16:55 AM PST by FoxInSocks
If such expert advice is to be utilized by the public, then the public must be trained and must prove, by testing, that they have learned and mastered the subject.
Realistically, as one with intimate knowledge of government certification, most of what passes for certification these days is a farce. We have a plethora of credentialized vocations, but obtaining such certification in most areas has little to do with the actual tasks performed by those with said certification.
I'm certified in my field. To remain certified, I must attend around 60 hours per year of training specific to the certification. The training covers a ton of rules, regulations, and procedural mumbo-jumbo but has much less bearing on the actual tasks involved with the job that requires this certification.
Maybe you do if you're a woman who really doesn't have the strenght to carry another person's dead weight very far. Maybe it took all her strength to get her out of the car.
When I was in college, a truck I was a passenger in was rear-ended by a drunk driver, who was estimated by other drivers to be going over 100 mph. We were thrown across 3 lanes of traffic and rolled several times down a hill, coming to rest upside down.
Thank God for the people ( non-professionals all) who stopped and dragged us from the truck, because we were totally disoriented and could not have gotten out without help. And you can bet fire was on my mind.
They didn't drag us very far, either, though it felt like miles. I was surprised afterwards to see that our feet were still in the windows. The paramedic explained to me that dead body weight is extremely heavy.
I don’t know why you think I dodged your question. The first few lines of my response were directed at your question. It would be up to the court if the person sued, stating they did not give consent. If the person was deemed not rational (i.e. intoxicated, mentally unfit, delusional, etc) enough to give consent, then the case is moot because it is implied. If the person was in imminent danger, then you are protected. If they were not, then you can be sued if your actions made their condition worse. As some others have pointed out, the rescuer in this case, removed her from the car, but placed her right next to it. Therefore, her argument of an imminent explosion does not hold water. However, had the car been on fire, it would be an entirely different situation (imminent peril). If the person gave you consent to assist them and then later stated otherwise and sued you, it would be up to the court. However, in most situations where there is no imminent peril, it is best to leave it to trained professionals.
“It’s hardly new information for the moderately well informed.”
Define “informed”. You obviously don’t understand civil litigation. Either the State can prove a person has been informed or not.
You also are some kind of snob in that you think only professional trained people should ever take any kind of action and only action for which they are trained; kind of like a union thug or a totalitarian government thug.
Have you been properly trained to operate your computer? Perhaps you should be presented with proper training from a professional engineer least you be held accountable for acts committed while operating that machine. Don’t even think of picking up a power tool.
I also did my basic medical training 20 years ago and am well aware of the medical issues of a motor vehicle accident. Rendering assistance can and does save lives even at the risk of causing further injury. Deciding that the 99% of life saving measures taken every year should not be taken because of that 1% of possible injury is just you thinking you know something and want to push the idea to seem knowledgeable. We usually call such people “nerds”.
Wonder waht these morons would think if they were in an accident, traped in a car that my ezplode and saw people sitting on benchs eating a sandwich watching and waiting for the possible car explosion?
Wonder waht these morons would think if they were in an accident, traped in a car that may explode and saw people sitting on benchs eating a sandwich watching and waiting for the possible car explosion?
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them."
The wife and I both go through the same in our respective job. Hours of useless “training” primarily on safety, taught by people who usually have limited real-world experience. I just went through 36 hours of training just to take a test. The training primarily included videos to watch on safety, which had nothing to do with the subject matter. I have to go through similar training every 4 months; many subjects covered over and over and over again.
Simple PSA are not even close to being “informed” as some peope here want to think the general public must be.
I said you were dodging my question because I was really only interested in a specific situation involving a dispute over whether consent was given. The confusion is at least partly my fault for not indicating that the person would not be intoxicated, retarded, etc.
“If the person gave you consent to assist them and then later stated otherwise and sued you, it would be up to the court.”
And that is exactly where I find a problem. I think emergency situations are the perfect place for bright-line rules.
Also, I agree totally (and have stated so in the thread) that it seems like her placing the body right outside of the car suggests that she made this up after the fact, but someone earlier made the great, albeit politically incorrect, point that she may have been a rather weak woman who could not carry the person very far.
Can anyone explain to me why the CA Supreme Court is in San Francisco and not in Sacramento? I do believe they pick stupidity up either through the atmosphere in San Francisco or through osmosis. So if the Supreme Court is not required to be in Sacramento then maybe we should move to Fresno or Bakersfield.
And that quote was from “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.
That book is just FULL of statements that apply today!
I think from a SCOTUS issue there is also a right to life issue and a Constitutional rights issue. Where does the State get the right to demand no one save another’s life? Do people not have the right to life such that they can enjoy the right of others to save them? If I choose to save a life where does the government have the right within the Constitution to stop me? Providing laws by which my actions can cause me injury is the same as preventing actions.
Colorado’s Samaritan law (C.R.S. 13-21-108) only allows for civil litigation when “the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton”. This does not prevent any and all lawsuits but it does require the plaintiff to prove their case and allows dismissal otherwise. I believe our law is reasonable.
“I think you have more faith in the average American than I do.”
Probably not, and these cases are not easy. The article gives us some information, but I’d like to know more. One thing, there were five people (including the victim) in the two cars. I wonder if the rescuer consulted with others, what they thought, etc., or if she just instantly acted on her own with no input for others including the victim.
But this is tough, even tougher than deciding when to shoot an intruder.
The Good Samaritan Laws protect all of the volunteer FD and Rescue Squads.
Back in small town Maine, a substantial percentage of those services are volunteer provided.
Not sure about CA, but they might have just lost a significant percentage of their medical coverage, at least in rural areas.
Good Samaritan laws don't apply when you're on a call and acting in a "professional" capacity -- you're held to a higher standard than a bystander.
Although, if I were on a volunteer squad, I'd be a lot more concerned that the court would kick the legs out from under me. Hindsight is 20-20, and the lawyers and judges in charge of the hindsight weren't in the backseat of a car holding traction on the victim.
I agree with you that there should be bright-line rules because it does vary from area to area. As I said, there are a couple of states where you can be fined or even charged with a petty misdemeanor if you don’t at least call 911.
This is a STUPID STUPID ruling
That view will ultimately complete our transformation from a nation of free and sovereign citizens into a mass of government-dependent subjects. See the United Kingdom for a glimpse of the future.
The courts (lowercase c) are perverting the natural relationships people should be having with each other.
This is simply immoral, and I would argue, not Constitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.