Good samaritan sued by victim she saved

And that's why we see footage of the old man who was run over by a car and lie there while everybody keeps going about thier business.

Creeps. The world is full of them.

 

Simply and abomination of the legal system. This only reinforces the urge to look away.

 

I understand that it's hard to stomach suing someone tries to help someone else, but there are two things that, if proven, would make this a valid lawsuit.

If they can prove that the victim wasn't in any immediate danger (i.e. the car wasn't likely to blow up) and that she wouldn't have been paralyzed if the samaritan had left her in the car, then I think she has a valid argument. The woman did lose use of her legs here. That's something that would be difficult for any of us to take.

I do think the samaritan needed to use common sense here. She said she feared the car would blow up. That's just a situation that's so unlikely, outside of a Hollywood film, that she should have taken care to assess the situation. Cars are built NOT to blow up. Now, maybe the car was in danger of blowing, I don't know. If that's the case, the samaritan was definitely right.

I don't about all of you, but I've always been taught that if someone is in a car accident, you DO NOT MOVE THEM unless it is absolutely immediately necessary. You wait for the ambulance specifically so this sort of thing doesn't happen.

I'd need to see more details of this case before I'd know whether the victim is an asshole or the samaritan was an idiot, but I can see both sides of the argument here.

 

Probably both. But yes, not moving the person is rule number one in those situations. An innocent bystander has no legal duty to attempt to rescue someone in peril, but once he does he assumes the duty of giving reasonable care to the victim.

 

How about sentencing her to life in a wheelchair... oh wait.

 

Kayyyyyyyyyyyy....

So YOU would know if a car was "about to blow" coming upon a crash scene?

Spare me these pathetic rationalizations.

For fuck's sake.

 

If she hit the utility pole at 45 mph, who's to say she wasn't already paralyzed before the friend even stopped to help?

Wonder what the speed limit is on that particular stretch of road, anyway. It'd be a huge kick in the ass to her negligence claim if it turns out the limit was only, say, 30 mph. Not that she'd feel that kick, I guess.....but I hope someone keeps us in the loop.

 

Um, usually there is fire. Cars don't just blow up after hitting a telephone pole five minutes after the fact if there isn't a fire.

That being said, having taken a first aid cousre last year, one of the things they stressed in that situation is, unless you absolutely have to (ie, car is on fire) do not move the guy. Make sure they are breathing. stop what bleeding you can, if you can. calm them. Make sure paramedics and fire dept. are on their way. But move them as little as possible. To me it's common sense not to drag someone out of a car upon coming up to a crash site.

 

Bingo.

Spontaneous combustion isn't that common.

 

There are plenty of fires in a car crash that are concealed.

Just like the body conceals internal injuries.

Like I said, spare me the apologism.

 

One of my older sisters is a certified CPR instructor, and one of the things she was telling me a couple years ago is that she hears of a lot of lawsuits because people (even EMTs) often break the breast plate or a rib or two when administering CPR.
The victims, even though they've often gone from dead to living with some pain, try to bring about some horse shit suits.
Good times.

 

Simon, please answer the follwing question:

Is a person involved in a car crash more likely to be further injured by A) an explosion or B) being removed from the vehicle by someone other than a paramedic or other emergency response-trained individual?