Makes me sick. Maybe I could see suing the driver of the car for getting into the accident if they had been drinking or something, but to sue the person that tried to save you?

Here's another rediculous case: http://www.bloghouston.net/item/7437

I will defer to my earlier comments on lawyers here and would like to add these people to that boat.

The guy who comes on at 0:40 sounds exactly like the Lady's Man.

Can you sue someone for being an ass hat???

Seriously, what a fucking nob!

I totally disagree. If someone is stupid enough to move your after a neck or spinal injury and can't take the basic steps to try and immobilize your neck, they should be sued.

Imagine if I came along and tried to do CPR and cracked all your ribcage and shoved a bone into your lung and you died in 2 mins. And maybe you were still breathing but they just thought that's what you are supposed to do. Or someone passes out and a samaritan starts slapping them so hard they give them a concussion. Or you are choking and someone starts jumping up and down on your stomach.

Was the car in this case even on fire? NO? then he deserved to be sued. If it was on fire then probably not.

yeah but thanks to tv, the guy probably honestly believed that since they were in a wreck, the car was of course going to explode...that's what always happens, after all.

@JD: The problem is, there needs to be a very clear procedure for determining negligence in good samaritan lawsuits. Quite frankly, the onus of proof NEEDS to be on the victim and neutral medical professionals, and it doesn't just need to be proving that the person who helped them ended up injuring them - it also needs to be proving that they would not have sustained equal or greater injuries had they been left alone.

I have heard of cases where, simply because there was no one else to sue, a good samaritan who actually saved someone's life got sued for helping. There are situations where snap decisions must be made, and the threat of a lawsuit hanging over potential good samaritans just for trying to help is going to mean more people die.

>> ^joedirt:
I totally disagree. If someone is stupid enough to move your after a neck or spinal injury and can't take the basic steps to try and immobilize your neck, they should be sued.
Imagine if I came along and tried to do CPR and cracked all your ribcage and shoved a bone into your lung and you died in 2 mins.


Better getting your ribs cracked than die.. That's what happens all the time but its the lesser of two evils..

No one will help anyone if such a case gets through. Better people helping others and once in a while F*** up..


The world doesn't get better trying to squeeze it into courts.

if the law passes, how long before 'Good Samaritan Release Forms' get passed out? after all, while someone may be asking for help at the time, who knows what will happen once they get to a point where they're 'better' and are seeking monetary damages.

fight laws with laws. you could throw someone into a fire as long as you have them sign a release form first.

The good Samaritan laws will only protect you if you are performing medical procedures (CPR, first aid, etc) within your level of training.

To simplify: If you don't know shit about CPR and you perform it on someone and end up cracking all their ribs or puncturing a lung because you were doing it too hard, then you are liable.

You don't necessarily have to be doing something medical to be protected. If it's something like pulling someone from a burning car, then you're alright, because it's not a medical procedure. So if someone starts choking and you can't dislodge the obstruction with the Heimlich, don't pull out a knife and try an emergency tracheotomy just because you saw House do it last night. If someone is trapped in a burning car and you drag them out only to dislodge their shoulder, you should be alright because like thain said, they have to prove they would have been better off if you left them there.

I can't watch the video now, but I'll have to catch it when I get home.

This video is only half the story. According to another version I heard, the "good samaritan" was likely intoxicated, and dragged the victim "like a ragdoll" from a car that was not on fire. Furthermore the victim was place just outside of the car, not out of range of a potential fire.

Yes, in extreme circumstances where somebody is in danger of imminent death, the good samaritan should be protected from liability of minor wounds. However in this case, they had no clue what they were doing, and as such should not have gotten involved.

As I was taught as a child, saying "I thought I was helping" is not a defense against the damage you do by failing to think things through.

(LA Times Article)

Surely it comes down to intent.

A good samaritan is not going in to "save" someone, poetentially risking their own life and intentionally trying to hurt/injure/make worse the other person.

I just think it's really...sad that it comes to this.

What's next? Do people standing around get sued because they don't go into help???

Ah, and now that I've seen the video, I want to slap both the helper and the helpee.

Last I heard, the statistics of car crashes state that less than one half of one percent of all crashes result in fire/explosion. So yes, in this case that paraplegic would have been better off if she was just left in the car, but it's horse shit to sue someone for trying to HELP YOU.

Although I'm not a fan of the litigation culture that is growing in the UK (and seems to have entirely swallowed the US) you can't disregard the consequences of someone's actions just because they mean well. There just has to be a line drawn between unfortunate accident and negligence.

I know sod all about first aid but I know for sure that you never move people with potential trauma if they are not in immediate danger. Similarly, I cringe when I see videos of bikers who have crashed and "good Samaritans" immediately yank their helmet off as if that will help, rather than potentially paralyzing them.

Here's the issue: you can be sued if you don't help and you can be sued if you do help. The moral of the story: if you see an accident run away before anyone can ID you.

Society has a vested interest in encouraging people to help each other. Thus a lawsuit against a good samaritan should rarely be allowed to proceed. But, neither should we put the bar on suing them too high. If the guy was drunk and the car never exploded, then it seems like a reasonable case to have proceed to court.