"DNR"

-john

Jakam - "People that want to sue will always sue and let the court decide right or wrong, win or lose, appropriate or inappropriate. I can't live my life worrying over or in fear of impending litigation......."

In an emergency you have to quickly but carefully consider the situation, how to act and how your actions might look to others. If you were sued and you had to explain your actions, methods and motivation to a jury could you do it? Would a jury of reasonable people see you actions as conservative, reasonable and well considered given the situation?

If you can't picture yourself being able to explain your actions, or inaction, to a jury of common people then it should give you a clue as to how reasonable your plan really is.

A sly and cunning lawyer may still try to paint you as a villain but worse case, assuming you considered it beforehand, you can still hold your head high, look the jury in the eyes, and honestly tell them that you were doing the best you could given the situation. IMO most juries will give the benefit of the doubt to a person who was reasonable, careful, conscientious and acting in good faith.

But you have to make sure what you do can be seen as reasonable, careful, conscientious.

Many such suits are initiated by the payer of the costs of medical care. Beneficiaries can be, and usually are, contractually bound to aid their insurer in recovering these costs.

You may have no choice but to sue your best friend one day, if your insurance company decides that he could be legally responsible for causing your claim for insurance benefits.

Jeff

Which means that the CA Supremes have codified the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Lawyers and insurance companies will take that ball and run with it.

+1, and an apparently minority view that the CA court basically got it right; you have to know what you are doing before you try to remove someone from a (apparently) non-burning car. Also, if you render emergency medical aid. Most, if not all, of the members of this forum know what they are doing.

I have EMT training and certification. Major emphasis in training was careful removal (how and why) of injured people from a car wreck. A while after, I saw a car flip and go off the road, ending upside down. Of course, the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt. No fire. I was grabbing my kit, and shouting to bystanders not to move the driver, and was pushed aside while they dragged him out. Frankly, if he had been injured by their "rescue," I think they should have been sued and lost.

Our instructor also told us the story of someone who witnessed a heart attack, shouted "I know CPR" and attempted (failed attempt) to do CPR. Turns out they only saw it demonstrated on TV. No class, no certification. Apparently, there were others around who had been certified. . .

My understanding is that a Doctor's most important rule is "First, do no damage."

so, I think the CA court is ending up in sorta the right place.

what about the elephant in the room?

the three women had been smoking marijuana prior to adjourning to a bar for 3 1/2 hrs where they had 'several drinks'.

could it be that someone's judgment was impaired?

i'd hope that my fellow members here wouldn't get behind the wheel impaired in the first place, and if they did, and saw an accident, they'd call 911 and keep on going.

i wouldn't want any impaired person helping me, thank you very much.

best for the impaired and best for me.

+1