Good Samaratin being sued....
Yeah this blew me away:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news
Good Samaratin being sued....
Yeah this blew me away:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news
Re: Good Samaratin being sued....
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yeah this blew me away:http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news
The reporting committed a non-sequitur logical fallacy.
The suing lady was in a wreck where injuries were sustained. They were not a trained professional and that person removed the injured lady probably caused the spinal cord permanent damage. The lady and daughter in the car were not in a wreck, they were washing away down a river. Removing the flood victims would not cause their broken back to sever their spinal cord.
It is pretty damn obvious that the car crash victim should have been left alone and the flood victim should have been rescued. There's nothing to report here.
This is certainly...
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Even if the rescuer thought the car would catch fire?
Sounds like the "rescuer" has watched too many movies...which is probably why the "rescued" was so pissed. They were satisfying their own phobias through their Hollywood perspective.
The "reporters" never tell you that the car never caught fire. Hence why the case made it anywhere.
I'm not taking up for the whiny b*tch as she should not be taking it this far. However, it sounds as though the "rescuer" was panicked and threw the lady around very roughly.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The reporting committed a non-sequitur logical fallacy.The suing lady was in a wreck where injuries were sustained. They were not a trained professional and that person removed the injured lady probably caused the spinal cord permanent damage. The lady and daughter in the car were not in a wreck, they were washing away down a river. Removing the flood victims would not cause their broken back to sever their spinal cord.
It is pretty damn obvious that the car crash victim should have been left alone and the flood victim should have been rescued. There's nothing to report here.
The story was how "Good Samaritans" could be sued if they messed up when trying to help someone and how this fact could affect things in the future, possibly by making people think twice about interfering to help someone...
So really...you were wrong it was news worthy...
Also, your non-sequitur thing... why not just say that it didn't make sense (oh which it did) like everyone else?
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
No.. no he's right, about what he's talking about.
He said there was nothing to report here...there was.
People would be expected to remove someone from a carwreck, I personally would know to leave them because I've been told too but most people would try and help.
Those people would pull them out the car and just leave them by the road- this might not be the medically correct thing to do but it has long been considered the correct moral thing to do.
Fact is, this was newsworthy because it shows that people may now think twice about helping others in distress for fear of being sued...this applies to people in car wrecks, floods and any other form of emergency.
Imagine he dropped the women from the bridge- would she have sued?