2 men suing woman they saved They blame her for crash that led to their injuries

[ChrisBorg]

Source: dispatch.com

---cut the intro fluff---

A professor at Capital University Law School says this is no “man bites dog” story, that rescuers sue those they helped more often than people think.

“The precedent is clear: danger invites rescue ... and if you’ve acted recklessly or negligently and someone gets hurt rescuing you, you could be in trouble,” said Stan Darling, who teaches tort law and civil procedure at Capital.

Every state, including Ohio, has a “Good Samaritan” law that is intended to absolve rescuers from liability when they, in good faith, attempt to save someone. But when it comes to the protection of the people being aided, judges and lawyers look to a federally recognized tort law known as “the Rescue Doctrine,” Darling said.

---cut---

Kelley said he knows some people will scoff at the lawsuit and call it frivolous and mean. But he was a self-employed contractor at the time and had no insurance. He says his medical bills have mounted and his daily life is forever changed. He said they filed the lawsuit only after they found out from an acquaintance — long after the crash — that it had been a suicide attempt.



Read more: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/08/01/2-men-suing-woman-they-saved.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. There are some KEY pieces to this that I think people should read.

Since there have already been excerpts posted, if folks are not willing to read the full article, here is what should be read. There's a paragraph that starts "Kelley said he was even more concerned about something else" that people should read, and the following 2 paragraphs. They come near the end of the article and I think that's really unfortunate.

PB

[struggle4progress]

4. +

[ChrisBorg]

9. I agree. I was limited by the 4 paragraph rule.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. suicide attempt could negate her insurance coverage.

Some policies exclude any payment for any reason when the basis is attempted suicide of the insured. There's a public policy basis that mostly makes sense, but not always.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Don't think it negates her liability coverage. And if it was suicide, then she is definitely to

blame for their injuries, the same as if she had plowed her car into oncoming traffic.

[pam4water]

3. If we had nation health care it wouldn't be an issue at all.

[SoapBox]

5. The rescuers helped VOLUNTARILY? Correct?

...they made their own decision.

How can they have grounds to sue?

[Poll_Blind]

6. You should really read the full article. Sometimes just the excerpts will do, but not in this case.

PB

[McCamy Taylor]

8. Because she deliberately created the "accident." Same as creating a public hazard that got other

injured.For instance, if she had thrown a lit cigarette into a pile of brush and started a fire and the two guys were injured trying to save a child in the fire, she would be liable.

[treestar]

10. I thought that was already part of the common law

Rescuers are included and foreseeable victims of a defendant's negligence.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Hence the saying: Danger invites rescue.

This thread should bring out the "frivolous lawsuit bla bla bla Lawsuit lottery bla bla bla" posters on this site.