There's the story.
Basically, a woman pulled a co-worker out of the car after she thought it was about to catch on fire and ended up paralyzing her.
I really don't know what to think about it. On one hand, this woman must of been rough as hell. Geez. If she was THAT reckless, then by all means sue her. On the other hand, she was being a good Samaritan.
She said, "She would of rather the woman left her in the car." Wtf? If she suffered 3rd degree burns or something, she would be suing her for that.
If that car would of blown up and she didn't get her out of the car, she would of been sued for something. Damn if you do, damn if you don't.
I'm not really sure how it is outside of the states but here you can't walk outside without getting yourself in a situation that you might get sued.
It's a shame.
Take this for example: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google1.html
Suing Google for invasion of privacy because of "street view."
Quote: from jamesish at 4:04 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Quote: from smartlake at 6:13 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 1:18 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Quote: from smartlake at 2:53 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Perhaps she was rough with her friend, and maybe the paralyzed woman might have survived without her help, but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one. Just FYI: both people in question were females. The topic was edited like a while ago. I was talking about all the replies made by people, evidently everyone thought the rescuer was a man (or something like that...) "but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one." It's obviously not good enough. It doesn't apply here. I meant that I thought it was a good law.
Quote: from smartlake at 6:13 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 1:18 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Quote: from smartlake at 2:53 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Perhaps she was rough with her friend, and maybe the paralyzed woman might have survived without her help, but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one. Just FYI: both people in question were females. The topic was edited like a while ago. I was talking about all the replies made by people, evidently everyone thought the rescuer was a man (or something like that...) "but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one." It's obviously not good enough. It doesn't apply here.
Quote: from jamesish at 1:18 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Quote: from smartlake at 2:53 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Perhaps she was rough with her friend, and maybe the paralyzed woman might have survived without her help, but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one. Just FYI: both people in question were females. The topic was edited like a while ago. I was talking about all the replies made by people, evidently everyone thought the rescuer was a man (or something like that...)
Quote: from smartlake at 2:53 pm on Dec. 29, 2008 Perhaps she was rough with her friend, and maybe the paralyzed woman might have survived without her help, but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one. Just FYI: both people in question were females. The topic was edited like a while ago.
Perhaps she was rough with her friend, and maybe the paralyzed woman might have survived without her help, but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one. Just FYI: both people in question were females.
The topic was edited like a while ago.
I was talking about all the replies made by people, evidently everyone thought the rescuer was a man (or something like that...)
"but allowing her to sue would open up a whole new can of worms with the good Samaritan law. The law is a good one."
It's obviously not good enough. It doesn't apply here.
I meant that I thought it was a good law.
It's just not. But we all have our opinions.
I saw this story on digg I think. Amazingly sad.
That it is. I honestly don't know if I could help someone after reading things like this.
It's one of the MANY EVILS of capitalism... If she was killed by the fire she would't have been able to sue anyone.
Her family would. Believe that.
And she will probably get some kind of funding. I'm not sure how it is in California.
Poor guy.
You still have to give consent under the good Samaritan law, no? Unless the person is unconscious, then it's implied consent.
I believe that's true. If you reach out your hand, you're giving consent and the Samaritan law comes in.
"California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify."
I'm think this woman is in deep anyway.