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...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.
........ 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.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?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....against Boulder County for not blocking the road.
...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.
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..
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
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-declarationPlenty 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.
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 whorender 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.
but is that really an excuse for making the single most egregious interpretive error in the Shakespearean canon?
When Willy Shakes in Henry VI had Dick the Butcher declare ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' this was not meant as a dig at lawyers even back in the 1400s. To the contrary, Dick the Butcher was a follower of the terrorist Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. The best way to do that, in his view, was to get rid of the lawyers and judges who were the fabric that held society together. Thus, the comment was actually meant as a compliment to those shepherds of the Lord, the lawyers. All right, now that you have been properly chastised you can go back to your morning session.It's true! I must say, however, that I was not the least bit surprised when I saw you thoughtlessly parrot the "accepted wisdom" about this much-maligned automobile. You now march at the the front of anti-Corvair nabob mob. One good thing about the Corvair: if there never were a Corvair, we would probably never heard of Ralph Nader, whose first swive at the feckless whore and fickle slut known as "fame" was the publication of his book, "Unsafe At Any Speed." His book is often unfairly characterized as being "about the Corvair." Despite 6-7 other chapters in which his book maligned many other car brands, the book had as diametrically inverse an effect on Corvair sales as the advent of AIDS had on the sale of condoms. (Do you recall "Ayds Diet Candy?" It is surely the Godfather of unfortunate product names). The book's publication had the immediate effect of a deluge of lawsuits being lodged against GM by Corvair owners who felt they had sustained a wide variety of frivolous damages. Most of the lawsuits were the results of the owners not following recommended factory specifications regarding proper tire pressures. In 2-4 years, GM stopped making them. It was another early example of the Government acting in the role of nanny as they "stepped-in to do something for the children" in a hasty reaction to a bogus "good cause" created by a muckraking author. The Feds stepped-up to the plate by creating another maze of regulations and more layers of bureaucracy for Americans to contend with. (An even earlier example would be the creation of the FDA in 1906 subsequent to the publication of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"). As a somewhat younger man, I was the proud owner of a Corvair. It's piston rings were so loose and worn that pure, greasy carbon continuously belched from the exhaust pipe to deposit itself on the rear panel. The front-end trunk was it's saving grace -- I would often line the bottom and the sides of it with a large tarp, throw in a few bags of ice and as many cases of beer I was able to put my hot hands upon in order to achieve that moveable beer blast effect at a remote location for the benefit of myself and my circle of rangy friends. Good, clean fun. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Shakespeere-"Henry VI," Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73.