Latest on MJJC

By Standers Ignore Dying Woman's Pleas

:lol:

oh boy any chance eh? Tell me MissyLedger as I am curious, just how many bones have you broken over your life span? You always seem to be in some sort of "condition".


Back on topic however, this story is a true example of the bystander effect, and going on from what others have already said there is a fear of being sued from trying to help a stranger. People hear horror stories about a good samaritans being sued after calling 911 and staying beside the victim, only to be sued for the cost of the emergency services because the victim didn't have insurance to cover the bills and wasn't asked if they needed or wanted the paramedics.
Not everyone is educated on the law and so they go with what they know.
 
Zith said:
:lol:

oh boy any chance eh? Tell me MissyLedger as I am curious, just how many bones have you broken over your life span? You always seem to be in some sort of "condition".
Click to expand...


i dont find it a laughing matter broke my wrist both legs one twice
i had my ribs broken

long story so back on topic

you only sue someone if its their fault or if u feel theres a need too not just for the fun of it
 
MissyLedger said:
you only sue someone if its their fault or if u feel theres a need too not just for the fun of it
Click to expand...

yeah well i guess the good samaritan that saved the woman from the burning car just got what she deserved then? the California court at least would agree.
 
^ 5

MissyLedger said:
i dont find it a laughing matter broke my wrist both legs one twice
i had my ribs broken

long story so back on topic

you only sue someone if its their fault or if u feel theres a need too not just for the fun of it
Click to expand...

No I find it a laughing matter that you're trying to change the topic to make it about you, which you seem to do quite often -_-

Also you can sue anyone as long as you can make a decent arguement for your case. friend's response is a brilliant example :cheeky:
 
friend you sound like you saved someone's puppy once and they sued you for returning it shaved like Dr. Evil's cat...

but i agree with your points, and i'm afraid the phrase "only in America" comes to mind because i haven't heard of such nonsense (fearing being sued as a stopper against helping someone out) anywhere else.

as for the bystander effect, it makes me wonder out of all the passionate outcries in this thread, what percentage of us would have reacted any differently to all the people that passed by.
 
arXter said:
friend you sound like you saved someone's puppy once and they sued you for returning it shaved like Dr. Evil's cat...
Click to expand...

ok... i'll try to sound a little less... um... scratches head...little help?
 
arXter said:
friend you sound like you saved someone's puppy once and they sued you for returning it shaved like Dr. Evil's cat...

but i agree with your points, and i'm afraid the phrase "only in America" comes to mind because i haven't heard of such nonsense (fearing being sued as a stopper against helping someone out) anywhere else.

as for the bystander effect, it makes me wonder out of all the passionate outcries in this thread, what percentage of us would have reacted any differently to all the people that passed by.
Click to expand...

I gotta admit I know of folks who have been afraid of helping others and have shunned the experience when it presented itself.

In regards to the bystander effect I can honestly say that if I felt safe I would ask the person in trouble if they needed help, because I would want that if I were in that situation. However if I didn't feel safe I would become one of the rude bystanders who turn and walk away, at least I'm honest enough to admit that to myself :lol:
 
arXter said:
as for the bystander effect, it makes me wonder out of all the passionate outcries in this thread, what percentage of us would have reacted any differently to all the people that passed by.
Click to expand...
considering I could get sued, I'd definently think twice, I'd probably just call the ambulance and police from somewhere and then walk off home
 
There are always 3 sides to every story...After researching the case Vanhorn v. Torti...

What I find extremely interesting is why Courts Do the Things they do...

Its funny, how we as a society only read/comprehend what we want to hear...

Its seems this group of friends were smoking Majuanna, (dope, pot), drinking alcohol, partying at a bar from 10:00 pm till almost closing time, Drinking & Driving all BEFORE this car accident occured...

Did the defendant (s) excerise "reasonable care" of what a prudent person would use..?

Mmm...see if YOU agree with the Supreme Court Justices..!

ROSENTHAL LLP HANGER, LEVINE


2nd Civil No. B188076 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALEXANDRA VAN HORN, Plainti'and Appellant, v. ANTHONY GLEN WATSON, Defendant and Appellant, and LISA TORTI ...
  • www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/vanhorn2.pdf
  • · Cached page
  • · PDF file
:angel:Knowledge Is Growth...Help Make That Change
 
Last edited:
the point of bringing up the case Sdeidjs is because you posted earlier good samaritans are immune. that is not true. they can be sued.

i guess the logic would be since they were high and/or drunk, that they should have just called 911 and hoped trained personnel made it in time to save the victim from possibly burning to death in the car or it exploding if the flames hit the gas tank before trained personnel could reach the victim.

i'm wondering, if they had only called for help and let the victim stay in the car that is burning hearing her cries for help, and trained personnel did not reach the scene fast enough and the woman had in fact died instead of having her life saved by the good samaritan, would the good samaritan be judged for having the opportunity to save her, but didn't because they were too drunk/or high? would the good samaritan be judged then to be ethically in err because instead of helping, they called watched her die?
 
Sdeidjs said:
What I find extremely interesting is why Courts Do the Things they do...

Its funny, how we as a society only read/comprehend what we want to hear...
Click to expand...
it's also funny how illogical the justice system can be.

quote from your enthusiastic source:


Plaintiff sued [*5] Watson, Ofoegbu and Torti. The
cause of action against Torti alleged that even though
plaintiff was not in need of assistance from Torti after the
accident, and had only sustained injury to her vertebrae,
Toiti dragged plaintiff out of the vehicle, causing permanent
damage to her spinal cord and rendering her a
paraplegic. After some discovery, Torti moved for summary
judgment.

----------------------

Although Torti testified at deposition
that she saw smoke coming from the top of Watson's
vehicle and also saw liquid corning from the vehicle, these
facts were subject to dispute.


----------------------

Plaintiff suffered various injuries, including
injury to her vertebrae and a lacerated liver that required
emergency surgery. There is a dispute whether the accident
itself caused plaintiffs paraplegia.



yes very clear isn't it?
f_erm.gif


why would anyone go to extreme of trying to evict someone out of a car if they didn't sense (and in this case see) danger?

and how is the court to know whether or not the injuries occurred because of the accident?
 
friend said:
the point of bringing up the case Sdeidjs is because you posted earlier good samaritans are immune. that is not true. they can be sued.

i guess the logic would be since they were high and/or drunk, that they should have just called 911 and hoped trained personnel made it in time to save the victim from possibly burning to death in the car or it exploding if the flames hit the gas tank before trained personnel could reach the victim.

i'm wondering, if they had only called for help and let the victim stay in the car that is burning hearing her cries for help, and trained personnel did not reach the scene fast enough and the woman had in fact died instead of having her life saved by the good samaritan, would the good samaritan be judged for having the opportunity to save her, but didn't because they were too drunk/or high? would the good samaritan be judged then to be ethically in err because instead of helping, they called watched her die?
Click to expand...

One of the key issue (s) that the court questioned...

Did the defendant (s) excerise "reasonable care" of what a prudent (sober) person would use..?

Defendant (s) Defense: Good Samaritian Law

:angel:Knowledge Is Growth...Help Make That Change
 
Sdeidjs, if you want to argue whether the court was right or not have at it. the purpose of referencing the case was not to set off a debate whether the ruling is effed up or not (personally i feel it is), but because you posted

Sdeidjs said:
Good Samaritan Law in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill.
Click to expand...

you did not state about caveats such as "reasonable care" of what a prudent (sober) person would use" and without making it clear the existence that such caveats are in play, it is misleading to put up that law along with this mission statement:

Sdeidjs said:
:angel:"Should ANYONE "EVER" see someone that is in need of help PLEASE DO NOT ignore them...Its better to call out loud than stay silent and do nothing...for the ramifications of saving a life...far out way the fatality of the great loss of a beautiful human being..!":angel:
Click to expand...

i am not encouraging people to not get involved. so i don't need further rebukes such as

Sdeidjs said:
:angel:put yourself in the place of the person who needs help...Wouldn't YOU want someone to step up to the plate and help you..?

Despite the "RARE" occasion (s) that the Good Samaritian Law "does not" offer protection for the Good Samaritian...

I would help in any way I could WITHOUT even skippin a heartbeat..!
Click to expand...

i am happy that there are people who are willing to put themselves on the line to help others out. it is the right thing to do. i am not challenging your convictions.

i feel that it is prudent to let people know tho, that they are not immune from legal liability. there are circumstances under which they can be sued. that saved victims do become plaintiffs and good samaritans do become defendants and that good samaritans can end up losing everything for not skipping a hearbeat to help in any way that they could, even putting their own lives at risk to save another.

i referenced the case as a psa if you will because misleading and/or incomplete information had been posted. people should be in the know is all before they act. obviously the good samaritan in the case i referenced was not in the know, acted in good faith to help out and paid a very heavy price for it, and as arXter pointed out, it is not clear if the plaintiff's resulting condition is a result of injuries from the car accident or from the actions of the good samaritan. in either case. it's a non-issue whether or not you now believe under certain circumstances someone should hesitate to help another human being or whether or not i agree with the ruling. the point is that good samaritans can be liable.
 
Last edited:
speaking on behalf of my best friend Sdeidjs

i think you got her wrong in certain places shes not one to fight with people shes down to earth and 2 she is actually a law student so knows some of the stuff and 3 shes right u shouldnt leave someone alone that needs help treat them as you wish to be treated yourselfs

quit the immaturity and help others that need it

anyway enough said just defending a friend here back on topic
 
missyledger, no one is fighting with your friend.
 
As a qualified individual to give immediate care to an individual in need I have to say that I would weigh the options long before I did anything. The most important thing is to keep everyone safe if that means denying care to protect myself or others then that's what it means. It's a decision you just have to live with. I've rushed in to help bleeding car accident victims before without a thought but now I have 3 kids to think about. I won't risk getting aids, being sued because someone at the scene disagrees with me or being in the position that my children would witness anything. So when someone doesn't render assistence it may simply be that they weighed the situation and found it inappropriate to do so. As human beings we have responsibilities but those responsibilities may end at calling 911. Just depends on the set of events.
 
Shannon said:
As a qualified individual to give immediate care to an individual in need I have to say that I would weigh the options long before I did anything. The most important thing is to keep everyone safe if that means denying care to protect myself or others then that's what it means. It's a decision you just have to live with. I've rushed in to help bleeding car accident victims before without a thought but now I have 3 kids to think about. I won't risk getting aids, being sued because someone at the scene disagrees with me or being in the position that my children would witness anything. So when someone doesn't render assistence it may simply be that they weighed the situation and found it inappropriate to do so. As human beings we have responsibilities but those responsibilities may end at calling 911. Just depends on the set of events.
Click to expand...

i totally agree
 
MissyLedger said:
speaking on behalf of my best friend Sdeidjs

i think you got her wrong in certain places shes not one to fight with people shes down to earth and 2 she is actually a law student so knows some of the stuff and 3 shes right u shouldnt leave someone alone that needs help treat them as you wish to be treated yourselfs

quit the immaturity and help others that need it

anyway enough said just defending a friend here back on topic
Click to expand...

Missy Ledger, no one is being immature here, and certainly not attacking sdeidjs or her admirable qualities of wanting to help others or even her wanting to encourage others to help those in time of need.

1. Arguing the facts of a case is not fighting with someone... I think you've missed the points being made here, the conversation is about debating the security of the good samaritan law and how dependable it is when put to the test (in a court of law).
Sdeidjs implied that we should never hesitate to aid those in trouble and cited that the good samaritan law would protect anyone who did aid someone in trouble. however... it was only after she was provided an example of the good samaritan law not always protecting the good samaritan that she mentioned that there were conditions to qualifying as a good samaritan.

In regards to this case and what has been said here, it could be implied that you can only be a good samaritan as long as you haven't been drinking, or taking drugs, otherwise even if you do save the person from death, you'll probably still be punished or attributed to any other losses the victim experiences, especially if you live in a sue happy environment.

2. If she is indeed a law student, she has yet to argue her case successfully in this thread, missing all the major points that members have presented and at times responding with a totally different answer or links to wikipedia?

3. In an ideal world, you're right no one should be left as people walk idly by, but has already been explained numerous reasons are at play, there's the bystander effect, there is also the fear of being sued for helping. People think of themselves first, or they think of their own loved ones and then they decide. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong just makes it what it is.
 
L.J said:
Missy Ledger, no one is being immature here, and certainly not attacking sdeidjs or her admirable qualities of wanting to help others or even her wanting to encourage others to help those in time of need.

1. Arguing the facts of a case is not fighting with someone... I think you've missed the points being made here, the conversation is about debating the security of the good samaritan law and how dependable it is when put to the test (in a court of law).
Sdeidjs implied that we should never hesitate to aid those in trouble and cited that the good samaritan law would protect anyone who did aid someone in trouble. however... it was only after she was provided an example of the good samaritan law not always protecting the good samaritan that she mentioned that there were conditions to qualifying as a good samaritan.

In regards to this case and what has been said here, it could be implied that you can only be a good samaritan as long as you haven't been drinking, or taking drugs, otherwise even if you do save the person from death, you'll probably still be punished or attributed to any other losses the victim experiences, especially if you live in a sue happy environment.

2. If she is indeed a law student, she has yet to argue her case successfully in this thread, missing all the major points that members have presented and at times responding with a totally different answer or links to wikipedia?

3. In an ideal world, you're right no one should be left as people walk idly by, but has already been explained numerous reasons are at play, there's the bystander effect, there is also the fear of being sued for helping. People think of themselves first, or they think of their own loved ones and then they decide. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong just makes it what it is.
Click to expand...

:clapping: well said, L.J. im sure you where just trying to help defend your friend Missy but nothing wrong with a friendly debate :)
 
I really do have to wonder about human nature sometimes...

Today in the bus an elderly lady suffered a pretty massive seizure, and a young girl and myself both rushed over there. I ended up taking charge because I know about seizures and the dos and don'ts, but everyone else just sorta sat there.

After the seizure was over and we laid her on the floor I sat with her to watch her breathing and tried to communicate with her. She was still pretty much passed out, but there were people in the bus who looked at their watches and mumbled something about being late. One man even walked around the bus to the driver and asked him what's the deal, why isn't he driving.

We're sitting there with a passed out elderly lady waiting for an ambulance, and people worry about the bus being late?

Ridicilous!

I do wonder how the lady is doing, though... They took her away in the ambulance, and I can't stop thinking about her. Poor woman
 
Minnie said:
I really do have to wonder about human nature sometimes...

Today in the bus an elderly lady suffered a pretty massive seizure, and a young girl and myself both rushed over there. I ended up taking charge because I know about seizures and the dos and don'ts, but everyone else just sorta sat there.

After the seizure was over and we laid her on the floor I sat with her to watch her breathing and tried to communicate with her. She was still pretty much passed out, but there were people in the bus who looked at their watches and mumbled something about being late. One man even walked around the bus to the driver and asked him what's the deal, why isn't he driving.

We're sitting there with a passed out elderly lady waiting for an ambulance, and people worry about the bus being late?

Ridicilous!

I do wonder how the lady is doing, though... They took her away in the ambulance, and I can't stop thinking about her. Poor woman
Click to expand...

:angel:Angel (s) in disguise~~~

Keep Helping Us To Help Heal The World...:punk:
 
Shannon said:
As a qualified individual to give immediate care to an individual in need I have to say that I would weigh the options long before I did anything. The most important thing is to keep everyone safe if that means denying care to protect myself or others then that's what it means. It's a decision you just have to live with. I've rushed in to help bleeding car accident victims before without a thought but now I have 3 kids to think about. I won't risk getting aids, being sued because someone at the scene disagrees with me or being in the position that my children would witness anything. So when someone doesn't render assistence it may simply be that they weighed the situation and found it inappropriate to do so. As human beings we have responsibilities but those responsibilities may end at calling 911. Just depends on the set of events.
Click to expand...

:angel:Keep Helping To Help Us Heal The World~~~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top