bc the driver was not paying attention when they gave him your address, that’s just your bad luck?
Do you think that is good policy? Why does our legal system allow lawsuits for negligence? To enrich lawyers? I don’t think so. A big part of it is to deter future acts of similar negligence. Why is your car so safe? Because there were so many lawsuits against car makers that it became too expensive to keep putting Corvairs on the assembly line? Why do doctors order additional tests that may not be required by the standard of care but sometimes find that early tumor? Same reason.
A few states may still have immunity for first responders. In most states, immunity has been waived but a plaintiff has to meet a high hurdle to sue a first responder – gross negligence or bad faith. Presumably this attorney thinks he can meet that standard. Apparently the county arrived on the scene and just assumed no one was alive in the car for some time before they pulled it out and discovered this guy was in there. Yeah, then they saved him…eventually.
Frivolous lawsuit? No. Suspend the atty's license? No. Catchy headline that caught you? Yes
........ I'm actually able to grasp the concept of the legal theory in which lawsuits are brought based on negligence/incompetence; yet nothing in this story shows any action or inaction on the part of the first responders that would indicate incompetence or negligence on their part.
It is endlessly frustrating, but under our laws anyone has the right to drive onto a flooded street and then sue their rescuers for failing to get them out as quickly as they felt possible. In allowing reasonable claims to be tried in court the system has left itself open to suits based in stupidity, arrogance and gold-digging. It's not perfect, but no legal system is perfect. This is why cities and states have insurance companies and well-trained, highly-paid attorneys to defend them from frivolous lawsuits by people who are out $40,000 because of their own actions and need someone else to bail them out. Whenever you wonder why your taxes go up every year, thank all the people who have attempted to sue your town in the last year. Even if they don't win, the city still looses in having to pay attorney and investigation fees.
...has to be rejected by the government entity prior to being able to file suit. There's always the possibility that the plaintiff's attorney may receive such negative publicity that he'll be reluctant to file. But there'll always be another one to take his place.
Flood water are one of the deadliest situations you can find yourself in. Worse than riptides because of floating debris and shallow depths. Many people drown each yr in floods. Didn't the Supreme Court just make a ruling stating that police don't have to help if it puts their lives in danger? They simpily can't be compelled to act because they are police? Much like firefighters don't have to run into a burning building if it's unsafe?
Their members can not be sued... it's the law.
The ACA is destroying the already unstable and expensive, publicly funded fire/ems service.
We have a good Samaritan law that prevents lawsuits for anyone who in an attempt to rescue someone else, does someone harm. I suspect that's a good law. It's better for people to try to save people, even if they screw up, then not bother for fear of being sued later.
Mari, would such a statute apply in this case, a case like it?
...the rescue personnel but the plaintiff's lawyer could argue the Good Samaritan law only applies to the actual rendering of assistance and the rescuers were negligent in not promptly locating the victim.
1. In good faith, renders emergency care or assistance, without compensation, to any ill or injured person at the scene of an accident, fire, or any life-threatening emergency, or en route therefrom to any hospital, medical clinic or doctor's office, shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such care or assistance.
They are usually compensated for their actions. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compensate
... I only read about four paragraphs.
I didn't pay that close attention to this event. Does this guy want to sue his fellow citizen
excludes the salary of the specified first responders from counting as "compensation":
For the purposes of this section, the term "compensation" shall not be construed to include (i) the salaries of police, fire, or other public officials or personnel who
render such emergency assistance…
So as long as they act in good faith they are not liable, apparently even if they were grossly negligent.
There were not any recognizable calls for help emitting from the vehicle.
The swift water rescuers, may have been following protocol for over turned submerged rescue/recovery efforts. I doubt the rescuers would have approached the car, with out that car being attached to a tow line. Regardless the condition, of the patient inside.
For the purposes of this section, the term "compensation" shall not be construed to include (i) the salaries of police, fire, or other public officials or personnel who
render such emergency assistance…
So as long as they act in good faith they are not liable, apparently even if they were grossly negligent.
...against Boulder County for not blocking the road.
Would be to close all local, county, state, and federal roadways. In anticipation of any severe weather event.
...or be aware of the topography of the roads you drive on. I know what roads to avoid in a rainstorm, where I drive. AKA personal responsibility..
This particular phase of the natural disaster, or act of Science. Started on September 11 2013.
https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2013/09/12/president-obama-signs-colorado-emergency-declaration
Plenty of other PR about the upcoming flood dangers that were sure to follow the Colorado wildfires.
The most practical solution would be, to require a natural disaster/motor vehicle education class prior to receiving a state issued DL.
I don't doubt that he is not grateful to be rescued from the flood. I suspect, now, he's looking for a rescue from his mounting medical bills.
Some municipalities might even hit him with a bill for their services. Provided the municipality can prove the driver acted in a negligent manner. The question I want answered: Was the road washed out prior to his attempt at driving on it? or did the road wash out from under him at the very moment he drove across?
I still can't fathom why the rescuers are responsible for his medical expenses, or any related psychological trauma.