4 ms·

Also, soon it will be illegal to help victims of train and car crashes in order to reduce the number of accidents.

jdmichal 12y ago
Actually, in the US [0] it's the default that you can be sued for injury or wrongful death if you attempt to assist. Some jurisdictions have Good Samaritan laws [1] to fix this very issue, though even then it sometimes only extends to trained personnel like emergency responders and doctors. [0] And possibly other places, but I'm not familiar enough to say. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
- gnopgnip 12y ago
  You can be sued for anything, it's unlikely you would have any greater risk for attempting to help compared to doing nothing.
  - jdmichal 12y ago
    I do not understand why you would hold such a false impression. Anyone can indeed attempt to sue you for anything, however that says nothing about their likelihood to succeed. Say I am untrained in any rescue or medical procedures. I witness a car collision, and a rider was ejected from a vehicle and lying next to it. I proceed to move them due to perceived fire hazard, however they in fact have a broken neck and die due to my moving them before stabilizing the neck. If it could be reasonably argued [0] that the person would have lived with proper intervention had I not intervened, why should I not be liable for that? In fact, without a Good Samaritan law in effect, I am potentially liable for the rider's death. I can be successfully sued by the survivors. The whole point of Good Samaritan laws is to reduce or eliminate this liability to me in exactly these scenarios. Now, if I do nothing, I am likely to only be liable if there is a duty to rescue [1]. [0] As in, well enough to win a criminal or civil case. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
pessimizer 12y ago
That wouldn't reduce the number of accidents, but it'd be an excellent method to reduce the number of handicapped (and the inconvenience of accommodating them.) The US military has been suffering from this very real problem due to advences in medical technology over the past few decades. Not treating the wounded (or at least waiting a day or two) should significantly reduce the military budget.

Actually, in the US [0] it's the default that you can be sued for injury or wrongful death if you attempt to assist. Some jurisdictions have Good Samaritan laws [1] to fix this very issue, though even then it sometimes only extends to trained personnel like emergency responders and doctors. [0] And possibly other places, but I'm not familiar enough to say. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

gnopgnip 12y ago
You can be sued for anything, it's unlikely you would have any greater risk for attempting to help compared to doing nothing.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  I do not understand why you would hold such a false impression. Anyone can indeed attempt to sue you for anything, however that says nothing about their likelihood to succeed. Say I am untrained in any rescue or medical procedures. I witness a car collision, and a rider was ejected from a vehicle and lying next to it. I proceed to move them due to perceived fire hazard, however they in fact have a broken neck and die due to my moving them before stabilizing the neck. If it could be reasonably argued [0] that the person would have lived with proper intervention had I not intervened, why should I not be liable for that? In fact, without a Good Samaritan law in effect, I am potentially liable for the rider's death. I can be successfully sued by the survivors. The whole point of Good Samaritan laws is to reduce or eliminate this liability to me in exactly these scenarios. Now, if I do nothing, I am likely to only be liable if there is a duty to rescue [1]. [0] As in, well enough to win a criminal or civil case. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

pessimizer 12y ago

That wouldn't reduce the number of accidents, but it'd be an excellent method to reduce the number of handicapped (and the inconvenience of accommodating them.) The US military has been suffering from this very real problem due to advences in medical technology over the past few decades. Not treating the wounded (or at least waiting a day or two) should significantly reduce the military budget.