Don't help anyone

Remove all ads!

It's sort of sad you can be sued for trying to help someone.

 

I'm not 100% sure but I'm fairly certain that under common law systems what constitutes 'reasonable care' will be looked at given the level of knowledge somebody would be expected to have. When I was doing my accounting training it was often impressed on us that an accountant acting as a company director would be expected to recognise when a troubled company should just give up and file for bankruptcy at an earlier stage than somebody who had no financial expertise. Of course, in situations like this it may be decided that a lay person should know to wait for the professionals to arrive and take charge rather than jumping in themselves.

I would hope that most people would know that 1) seriously injured people should not be moved unless absolutely necessary and 2) cars won't magically explode for no reason. At the same time I don't think somebody should be punished just for being an idiot. I'd be very concerned if this lawsuit was to go much further, let alone succeed. Honest attempts to help others should not be punished.

Speaking as an accountant, I really don't understand what the plaintiff hopes to achieve. A severed spinal cord would result in a 6 or 7 figure sum for damages. Unless the 'rescuer' is a millionaire (we don't know but we can guess it's unlikely) how does she expect to get the money even if she wins? Most people would struggle to pay the costs of the lawyers' fees. Speaking of which, who is likely to get the bill for this? I've read that one of the reasons why the US is so litigious is that each side pays their own costs (in Ireland or the UK the loser will usually pay both party's costs). This was in relation to lawsuits against companies though, does it apply to cases between two individuals? Is the injured woman free to try her luck with the case or will she loose out if she doesn't succeed?

 

Man. I clicked on this thread expecting to read lots of posts bashing Objectivism. I feel betrayed.

I hate this attitude, mostly because it's so prevalent. What's implicit in this line of argumentation is that the subconscious is mostly irrelevant. I, ah, don't think that's correct.

I'm not saying let's blame Hollywood. I'm saying that 'people know it's fake' is not an acceptable rebutal to, "Let's blame Hollywood." Likewise, I'm not trying to single you out, Chandos. It just irked me for no apparent reason, and so I'm posting (hey...it's that subconscious again. Dammit! Why can't it leave me be?).

 

Thanks, Amaster.
I had posted that in a half-joking, half-serious mindset. On the one hand, I do expect people to generally think before they act, even though they usually don't. On the other hand, though, seeing something 10,000 times in a movie, and having no actual experience with it yourself (I'm assuming the woman wasn't a car mechanic or something), those movies can really start to drill something into you, even if you know they're fake.

 

AM - Maybe you should not watch so many movies. Any media has a tendency to distort people's view of reality, and the more they watch, the more that view becomes distorted. But what "irks" me is that people have lost the ablility to think for themselves (if they ever had it to begin with).

In journalism they made us watch some Japanese movie, I can't remember the name, it's been so long now. There was an assault on a woman (I can't even remember the details) and everyone who was involved, or witnessed it, gave an account of what happened. But it was acted out in the movie, like a flashback of what happened, rather than just described as testimony. Everyone gave a different account of what happened, depending on the point of view. By the end. there was almost no way to figure out what really happened, everything had become so distorted, especially for the viewer of the movie. It was a lesson in the limits of objectivty. But also how our objectivity is limited by preconceived notions of how things are and how that colors our emotional reponses to an event.

I think what irks you about my comment is that the media intentionally manipulates and distorts reality; it sensasionalizes and exploits those preconceived notions we have about reality, and plays on those emotions for its on purposes - and does so blatantly. What irks me is that people let them get away with it. It's almost as if they want to be manipulated. It's all rather...strange.

 

"It's been so long" indeed. It's a classic, man! Or so I'm told. I need to get around to seeing that. Anyway, yeah. Right on, dude.

 

That's it, AM. Sorry, I didn't remember all the details, but it was almost 20 yeras ago.

 

all mythbusters tested was whether a car could explode by having its fuel tank shot. Ive seen a car explode after an accident, well, a large pile up actually, it is believed that the fual tank ruptured during the accident and was then ignighted by the fire from a near by car, it can be quite a scene, and the pyroclastic 'pop' shattered the windows of nearby cars. I personally wouldnt have liked to have been inside the car.

from the article

 

They had the same kind of episode on Star Trek: The Next Generation!

I partially agree with your statement about the limits of objectivity, and certainly about the fact that the media can play on our emotions. That's why we have courts, I guess, to try to balance all of the opinions and positions and come up with the truth (or a reasonable facsimile thereof)

I would like to think that if I perceived a danger and honestly believed that I was doing the right thing that there wouldbe some protection for a reasonably intelligent person acting in good faith. But after some reflection, I can also see the point of the victim who may have been permanently injured by the mistake of another.

 

well, that has to be proven, but, how can you prove that the damage was caused by the resuce attempt and not the accident?

 

Valid point. I guess this would be your defense in such a case.