1. Are you a current member with account or password issues?

    Please visit following page for more information

    Dismiss Notice

The danger of 'getting involved'.

Discussion in 'First Aid Station' started by knestle, Aug 8, 2009.

  1. climberslacker

    climberslacker Empty Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, heres a question for you guys.

    I am a 15 year old with an Emergency Responce Cert from ARC (basically one step below EMT), I render assistance, without even talking to my parents about it. They decide to sue me for the 500 dollars I have in the Bank. Could they sue my parents for something that they had no hand in, and possibly weren't on the scene? Or would they sue me personally? I know my stuff so I didn't screw up, but it was only a few days ago, so it could happen. :shocked:

    -CS
     
  2. Monocrom

    Monocrom Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    8,228
    In that case, they deserve to be beaten with baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire.

    It's one thing when a lay-person is the topic of discussion. Quite another when someone is a professional. If you're on break, you're still on the job. Something happens, you deal with it. Then, finish up your break later.

    The law holds professionals to a higher standard. If a child drowns while near a manned LifeGuard tower at the beach, that LifeGuard can be dragged into court if it becomes known that he was flirting with some girl instead of keeping a watchful eye out for trouble in the water. And I don't mean civil court either. He could face some serious charges in criminal court for "being on break."
     
  3. primal

    primal Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    1
    I second that.
     
  4. jfirebalrog

    jfirebalrog Empty Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    That account really didn't tell me anything I hadn't seen.Notice they said they "couldn't" help because they were on break.Are we condemn these guys because career politicos are throwing them under the bus?Even the last quote said "if" the charges are founded.
    Wow 11 min for an ambulance in the middle of the city! Wasn't even a fdny truck when it got there! They need some serious help,more trucks or something.
     
  5. jag-engr
    • Administrator

    jag-engr Semper Bufo!
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    4,066
    Maybe everyone was on break....

    The "if" just leaves them some room if FDNY et al. can figure out a way to explain it all away.

    Regardless of what union rules "might" have existed, they were on duty and should have helped. I don't see how they could have been worse off for doing so. I think FDNY & the union would prefer a minor violation of break rules to the P.R. nightmare they have on their hands now, let alone the lawsuit that is sure to follow.
     
  6. jegrundh

    jegrundh Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    47
    break or not, they should have helped that woman. If someone is indistress you give them whatever aid you can, and even though they didn't have their bags I'm positive they could have done something.

    and sorry to hear the news CS :(

    i guess i just don't get the greed of people these days. They'll trample over other people for a dollar. I'd feel better at the end of the day helping the people run over rather than going for that $1. I think its time people reorganized their goals and mindsets. If there was an accident, and the person injured NEEDS to sue someone (to cover medical costs etc. which should for the most part be covered by insurance, but eh, depends on what it is and this is a hypothetical situation) sue the person who caused the accident. If it was their own stupidity own up to it, and don't sue the person that saved/helped you. If they are the only one that stopped and tried to render assistance, why would you try and sue them for malpractice unless you are a malicious greedy person? Bah.... how about all edc people move to vermont so we have enough people to ceceed from the US finally and in the new country we can adopt the good laws, rewrite bad ones, and make preparedness a law? :p jk of course, but seriously... yeah i'd love a ton of money to support my edc addiction... but i would NEVER sue someone who helped me, i'd thank them heartily and maybe stay in touch with them.

    Just my 2 cents....
     
  7. aegri_mentis

    aegri_mentis Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    8
    1. I do have a lot to lose. But not my pride. But I am confused by your statement. Are you saying you are rich, and I am poor? If so, that goes a long way towards expaining your attitude.
    2. Yes, I most certainly do have the right to criticize the decisions of others. That is called freedom of speech. You might want to invest in a copy of the Constitution, more specifically, the Bill of Rights, of which, Freedom of Speech is the first one listed.
    Like I said before, if you can't take criticism, don't put your thoughts out there....As a police officer, I get second guessed and Monday morning quarterbacked all the time, and it doesn't bother me.



     
  8. climberslacker

    climberslacker Empty Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry if I made it seem like i was sued, I wasn't, I was involved in a rescue tho, and was wondering the legality behind whether they could only sue me, or if they could due my parents too.

    Sorry,

    CS
     
  9. jfirebalrog

    jfirebalrog Empty Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    He'll correct me if I'm wrong,but my take on that was that we could lose our ability to ever provide for our family again,not that we/he are/is rich. Again it's really hard to tell when people are arguing morals if they aren't insulting the person,instead of arguing the logic from a moralistic view.
     
  10. aegri_mentis

    aegri_mentis Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    8
    Well, again, you don't realize that the most you can have garnished from your paycheck is around 25%. That does not make you destitute.
    The hyperbole in here is killing me.
     
  11. jfirebalrog

    jfirebalrog Empty Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well again the money is not the problem,you have to realize that a lawsuit whether founded or not could well make me unemployable and uninsurable ,hence unable to practice my chosen profession.

    Let's look at this 25 percent number.If it applies in your state does it get taken before or after taxes.It looks like earlier takehome was mentioned. So assuming you make 70k before taxes you are looking at close to 800 dollars a month which happens to be a house payment for a lot of people.Is losing your house worth helping someone who may or may not have a better outcome because you stopped? Explain losing your house to your wife and kids.Explain why your daughter cant go to college.That is what that 25 percent represents.It's not about the money ,it's about taking precautions so you can provide for your family.All of this is of course assuming you can even get anyone to hire you .Think of this like you would someone accusing you of brutality,when your city settles out of court,how will look to the next agency you apply at?If it is a choice between you and someone with no complaints who will get the job? Same concept.
     
  12. Monocrom

    Monocrom Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    8,228
    As an LEO, you make decent money. But if someone has a crap job, and currently can't find anything better, that 25% "pay cut" is going to be a real issue. And even if you win, you still lose. As a lay-person, if you help out a stranger who turns around and sues you; you're still going to end up with lawyer's fees.

    "How can I ever thank you, Mr. Shapiro? You did a great job getting this case dismissed."

    "You'll get my bill in the mail." :evilgrin:


    What's needed is tort reform. But since lawyers have so much power, that's not ever going to happen.
     
  13. chaosmagnet
    • GITD Manix 2XL Owner
    • Sponsor - Home Craftsman
    • In Omnia Paratus

    chaosmagnet Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    854
    I don't know what country you live in, and even if I did I'm not a lawyer. I'll assume that you're in the US.

    If you're covered by a Good Samaritan law, you're in pretty good shape. If you are not covered for any reason, yes your parents can be sued for your actions.
     
  14. Rob72

    Rob72 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    5
    Meh. Not likely. IF your parents are "well to do", and IF the person claiming injury has a way to follow up on who you are and where you live, and IF a personal injury attny felt he could prove gross negligence and malfeasance on your part, maybe.

    That's the difference between being professionally licensed and "certified" but not agency affiliated, and being under 18... ;) As-is, it would be hard to convince the attny that you are worth his time. Its much easier to tag the professioanl responders. Doing so would involve questions about why they didn't properly check or oversee your work, why you were allowed on-scene after "the professioanls" showed up, etc., etc.. :rolleyes: PIs get big settlements from Professional Liability companies, private care facilities, and State entities, not so much from mom and dad's home owners' policy.
     
  15. Rob72

    Rob72 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    5
    For laymen, you may be correct(case by case, YMMV, etc., etc..). It's clear by now that you do not understand licensure and "good-standing" hiring policies, so... :(
     
  16. Flight-ER-Doc

    Flight-ER-Doc Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    160
    Yes
     
  17. Flight-ER-Doc

    Flight-ER-Doc Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    160
    And you continue to ignore the fact that any savings, equities (stocks, bonds), and in many cases real property can be ordered sold to pay judgements.

    Since you keep stressing the garnishment of wages, I'm guessing you don't have much in the way of wealth - that doesn't mean others don't
     
  18. Flight-ER-Doc

    Flight-ER-Doc Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    160
    Here is a California Supreme Court ruling on the value of various protections...

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20090113.html
     
  19. aegri_mentis

    aegri_mentis Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    8
    No, I would assume that anyone who was served with a subpoena would have the sense to transfer all of their wealth to loved ones before the trial starts.
     
  20. Flight-ER-Doc

    Flight-ER-Doc Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    160
    And that is a felony in most jurisdictions, conveyance to hide assets....not allowed. You don't get to sell them to anyone (your spouse or other family members included for anything less than market value - and then you're expected to keep the proceeds.