Several years ago, my neighbor's Doberman jumped over his fence into our yard and bit the mail lady on the hand causing her to drop her mailbag and then bleed all over our front porch. After hearing her scream, we rushed to the door and observed her bleeding and the dog being dragged away by our neighbor who was repeatedly punching it in the snout. We sat her down, brought her a clean towel to wrap her hand, provided her a phone (which she asked for) to call her supervisor, we went out and picked up her spilled mail and brought the bag back to her, and then waited by her side until a supervisor came to the scene to take her to a doctor. Within two days we received a letter stating we were being sued.

If the neighbor's dog ever jumps over his fence again and attacks the mail lady, rest assured she'll bleed a very long time before anyone comes to her assistance.

Bummer. What were you sued for, the initial dog bite or something to do with the assistance you gave her? How was the suit resolved? Surely your homeowner's insurance carrier cross claimed against the dog owner, if the motion for a directed verdict/dismissal failed?

Before I make my main point, I seem to remember a case in CA where a bystander sued both drivers of a car accident that occurred in an intersection she/he was waiting to cross. I believe claiming emotional trauma of some kind.

This law shows why decisions by committee can be so obtuse. This continues to follow the logic of a thief suing a homeowner because criminal broke their leg in the act of robbing their house. Or suing because they required medical attention after being stuck in their garage during the summer and getting dehydrated before the police were called to arrest him.

This legal system is no longer in favor of defendants being 'guilty until proven innocent'. Its the defendant is a victim and entitled to compensation. In some cases more than they would have received had they just stolen the family jewels and the tv.

Utter buffoonary.

I will leave the long version to those who made it farther than 1 semester in law school, but . . .
One must remember that in a civil case there are two things working against the defendant: 1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary. 2) In a civil case the defendant must prove that they are not "guilty" (insert proper term in the quotes Jeff). Whereas in a criminal proceeding the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty by the state.

I discussed this with my counsel, (try being a builder and NOT having a lawyer.) and he told me from here out that unless I was directly involved in the accident all I should do is offer to call 911. He might be right, I just hope I don't have to find out.

It's nice when #1 son is your counselor's assistant coaching a mite development hockey team. Bills are somewhat smaller for after hours work.

I have received similar counsel.

In the real world: how many times have you and 100 other people sat in a movie theater waiting for the movie to start ten minutes past the listed time. Everyone is thinking, "Someone will go tell them." or "They'll be here in a minute to get it going."

Gee, if someone is choking in a restaurant, almost everyone will be looking at the person choking or looking away as not acknowledging the situation absolves them of having to be involved. "Someone who works here will call." "Someone here will help the choker."

Now if someone does the Heimlich maneuver they could potentially be sued by the choker for breaking their rib, throwing their back out or getting a steak sauce stain on their cashmere sweater.

You might not want to call 911 either,

http://www.florida-cracker.org/archives/004483.html

The court found her fear of fire to be unreasonable under the circumstances, not shared by anyone else at the scene apparently, and her unfounded fear of fire caused her to take precipitious action, yanking the victim from the car. The victim would have been better off remaining in the vehicle until help arrived. Obviously I can't separate an injury sustained in a 45 mph crash from one aggravated during rescue, a rescue that was poorly timed and attempted - but someone found that the rescue did actual harm, convincing evidence from a doctor's testimony probably. Whether we agree or not from 1700 miles away and perfect hindsight isn't really germane to the issue - there was a court, testimony, and a decision by a jury. If you or I were on that jury we would know all the admissible facts, we might have reached the same conclusion, or a different one.

I don't think the victim would have any claim against professional rescuers who would have pulled her from the vehicle, unless they acted as preciptiously or incorrectly (outside their professional obligation). In the words of Obi Wan, I just don't sense a disturbance in the force of the Good Samaratin law, at least not to the extent of others here. I'll still call 911, and if the scenario calls for it try to stop bleeding, or hold a head still until rescuers arrive. Even in California. That's not bravery, that's the reciprocal compact of the Samaratin law, which says if I stumble on scene I can give assistance within the limits of my training. Someone can later question that training, or I can exceed or perform poorly, but I am afforded some protection in return for making the attempt. If California actually interprets this such that samaratins should travel with a lawyer at all times, then it has a chilling effect. The improper actions of an untrained, possibly drunk defendant don't appear to have a great impact on me.

I now have to return to my storm preparations, the Great Wall of White Death approacheth the Pacific Northwest and I need to cache my frozen blueberries.

Agreed - no offense, this is why I don't like random counter-examples thrown out to support a point. What was the resolution of the claim, where did it take place, did you engage a lawyer - what did the entire incident actually cost you, in money, time and effort?

Whether you like it or not Sotto, the dog bite took place on your property, you were involved because of that - the neighbor's dog did the biting, but you provided the locus, and any lawyer worth their salt will join anyone in a lawsuit in an attempt to obtain all the facts for their client. Your beef - and your part of the lawsuit - is with your neighbor, for an uncontrolled dog who trespassed on your property and bit the mail person. The point of you getting a letter wasn't to find you liable for the dog bite or the medical assistance, it was to determine the actual facts and find the actual neighbor liable for their dog. If the outcome was different I'm all ears, but if the outcome was any different I suggest there might be more to the story, or you had really ineffective counsel.

I know its lousy to ive in a world of litigation, but on the other side of it there are a lot of folks out there avoiding responsibility (dog owners), to the extent that the rest of us (living next to the dog owner) get involved in lawsuits, just because the dog bit the mail man on our property. We sometimes live in the path of the tornado.

What I take from this is that the court will second-guess my actions if I happen upon an accident before the professional first responders. What's a joe-citizen to do? First, the vic will stay where I found her/him; that decision has now been made, the Good Samaritan Law provides zero protection. Second, since I'm not an EMT (or wannabe), my first aid kit is now going to stay in my truck. Those 4x4's are for my boo-boo's.

I'm almost willing to +1 on this. Yeah, I'm an EMT, but y'know, if I'm by myself, there is absolutely NO moving of the patient unless the car is actively burning. Even then, I might grab a few pictures to prove the point before I move the patient. Or more likely, open the door, point at the fire, and say, "Hey the car is on fire!!!" They can wrench their own back.

It's bad enough that I have to watch my a$$ while on the job; I'm not willing to have to watch it 24/7. Maybe I can have a contract drawn up and consent signed before I act in the future (only a slight jest)