I was just reading this article about two guys who saved a woman from a burning car, suffered injuries, and are now suing the woman. The article quotes a law professor who says that rescuers suing the "rescuee" isn't that uncommon.

I struggle with the implications of the article. On one hand, in a perfect world, we would like people to come to each other's aid and everyone lives happily ever after. Then again, bad things sometimes happen when Good Samaritans get involved, and many of us have gotten instructions during first aid or other courses to "not add another victim" to a situation by putting yourself in harms' way. The universal advice to not go into, or back into, a burning building is one example. Although I'm sick of people suing each other, I really do feel badly for these rescuers who ended up injured/disabled--injuries they wouldn't have had if they hadn't tried rescuing the woman. And these guys were suing for $25,000 each, so they're certainly not getting rich.

Have others ever considered the legal ramifications as some life threatening situation unfolded in front of them and it altered what they might have initially wanted to do to help? Professionals, like police officers or EMT's, often have to think about the legal ramifications of their actions all the time, but I'm thinking more in terms of regular folks--folks under no legal duty to act. If I don't want to risk getting hurt, or risk putting the victim into a worse condition, then the "logical" thing to do is to do nothing (ugh).

If they saved my life, that is one lawsuit I would be happy to pay.

It looks like these guys are just trying to recover medical costs. I can't blame them for that if they went out of pocket.

It is sad how sane logic puts you in a position to do nothing.

No doubt there will be a counter suit for medical costs by the rescuee as she wasn't expecting a large medical bill when attempting to commit suicide with a Hummer and the Life Insurance company will sue the rescuee for the attempted fraud of trying to defraud the life insurance company by pretending that her presumed death would have been as a result of an accident and not a suicide attempt. The lawyers of course will try their best to highlight the case via the news media the story to its fullest extent.

The life insurance company will then sue the rescuers for the lawyers costs of suing the rescuee (see above) because the life insurance company wasn't expecting the unforeseen lawyers costs because if the rescuee had actually died in the 'accident' and was not found to have attempted 'suicide' then those lawyers costs would not have been incurred.

The medical insurance company will also sue the manufacturer of the Hummer vehicle for allowing a potentially hysterical woman to purchase the vehicle knowing full well that suicidal hysterical women can't handle such large and cumbersome vehicles....And the manufacturer of the Hummer vehicle will counter sue because they had nothing better to do that day after receiving a call from the rescuers lawyers not to let the learned profession of lawyering down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-oHiBI5yWQ

the problem really ramps up if you are a concealed weapons licensee or plan on becoming one....

there are many CCW "diploma mills" rampant at gun shows and shooting ranges that show you a couple of films, and have you fire one shot to show competency (all that is required in the state of Florida)...

you really need to have an attorney, preferably a State's Attorney explain the liabilities and responsibilities if you act on behalf of others, let alone the perception of threat to yourself...

on a lesser thought, I've used a 10BC fire extinguisher on two separate occasions on vehicle fires of strangers, and neither offered to replace the extinguisher

a shooter friend (male ER nurse) injured his hand during a match, and I used about 1/2 roll of cling tape to immobilize the finger until he could get it x-rayed....he handed me a new roll the next match

Seems like you are asking about the opposite of what was in the article -- whether the potential rescuers chose not to help to avoid being sued. I heard this advice many times. Apparently the rescuers get sued pretty regularly (especially if something goes wrong), so people recommend to consider it carefully before you decide to step in.

Do you mean, when you use your weapon to defend someone, or in general? I.e. you unsuccessfully try to perform CPR on someone and your license gets revoked?

Well, I'm not only talking about getting sued--there's also the issue of injury/disability--but getting sued really sucks, too. The question involves either factor, I guess--injuries or litigtion--influencing how, or whether, to act.

The scenario goes the other way, too. There was that case a couple years back where a woman in a car accident sued when she was allegedly pulled out of the wreck unnecessarily by a Good Samaritan. She ended up permanently paralyzed and she claims that she wouldn't be paralyzed if the Good Samaritan hadn't done that.

Asked why, at the accident inquiry, why the witness stood by and let the victim die so needlessly in a burning car wreck when he could so have easily saved the victim, he said 'I'm a lawyer'

'But of course'....

My decisions were definitely always influenced by the risk of injuries. I'm pretty sure the decisions of others were too, this kind of happens automatically -- I think most people wouldn't want to risk their life for total strangers. What wasn't natural to me was considering the risk of litigation. I didn't think of it until I heard that some hospital was advising doctors and nurses to not give medical assistance when off duty due to risk of litigation.

I'm also considering now what to do with emergency kits. I usually hike with my wife, and I have a kit for two. But sometimes we hike with guests. So what if something happens and they don't have their own kit and we don't have enough supplies for them. I guess it would apply to home emergency kits as well.

(I didn't read all the posts.)

One's initial reaction here may be a feeling of repulsion. However, here's another way to think about it. The rescuers suffered injuries, which may be quantified in monetary damages. Who should be responsible for paying those monetary damages? Should the rescuers have to pay $25,000 for having the privilege of saving this person's life? Should the taxpayers (community at large) be required to foot the bill? Or should the person rescued foot the bill?

The only reasonable options here are either (1) the taxpayers or (2) the person rescued. Because I'm a fan of personal accountability, I say the person rescued should be responsible for paying damages in most cases.