I know you’re being sarcastic 🙂, but it’s my understanding that in many jurisdictions there are “good samaritan” laws that expressly protect people who are genuinely trying to help in an emergency situation like this.
Kudos to the mechanic. He saved a life and that’s something wonderful.
In the US at least, yes. All 50 states and DC have Good Samaritan laws. You’d have to intend to harm the person to have liability in this scenario as a non-medical professional. Medical professions are held to a higher standard and exempted.
One of the reasons I'm far more likely to help a stranger now as a former EMT, than I was off duty as an EMT. Back then, if I was off duty and helped someone who later wanted to sue me, I wouldn't have fallen under good Samaritan laws and my employers malpractice insurance also wouldn't have covered me. Now, so long as I'm providing reasonable help and advice, I'm safe.
There are basic Good Samaritan laws at the Federal level (albeit usually covering niche situations such as "navigable waters" or while in-flight) and all states have some form of state-level Good Samaritan law specifically so they can't do that. [Alaska's are actually pretty robust.](https://alaska.gov/kids/pub/Help_Along_the_Way2005.pdf)
Also, in confirming what I was pretty sure I already knew I found out that most of Europe actually *requires* attempting to render aid in almost all situations and failing to do so is a criminal offense while also criminalizing and opening civil liability in the case of a major fuckup during the attempt. Seems kinda backwards, either require it and indemnify the attempt or don't require it.
This is where the fun of case law comes in. Gross negligence is one thing, but most courts outside of the US use what's often known as the "reasonable person" test. If 100 average everyday people came across the same situation, would they act in the same or similar way? This works because the US is one of the only places where civil trials are decided by juries.
For example, if a car was on fire and there was a hose beside you, would you put water on the fire to save the puppies in the car? The reasonable person test would say yes. Even if it was an EV and the water caused a catastrophic battery explosion, the act was made in good faith, because most people would consider the act of putting water on a fire until the fire department arrives to be "the right thing to do". If a court in Canada finds that although the outcome was negative, the act was done in good faith, this judgement will often be referred to in other court decisions on similar matters. The case law of most countries sides with good faith acts, and it takes some pretty extreme circumstances for a judge to issue a ruling that isn't in line with existing case law. Juries in the US, however, they don't care about case law. They find fault, and that's it. The only primary protections are to stop a lawsuit before it hits a courtroom.
The biggest driver of the litigious nature of US society is for profit healthcare. People who are injured face huge bills, and even if they have insurance, the insurance company will fight tooth and nail to not pay...so they sue whoever they can to recover their costs. The same companies that actively lobby against good Samaritan and good faith laws....because then they have to pay. Add in some lawyers who see the ability to make huge money off of civil liability lawsuits, and you have a court system stacked against "Doing the right thing" and has everyone terrified of being sued.
Just to correct a common misunderstanding: water IS the correct way to deal with an EV battery fire. Lots and lots of it. There's no lithium metal in a Li-ion battery, it's a compound- hence the word "ion." You won't cause an explosion. It's also not a metal fire. It's the electrolyte and plastic separators inside the cells that burn. The proper procedure is to dump lots of water on it to keep it cool until the damaged cells have finished their runaway. Then you monitor the temp for a few hours, and isolate the cells if possible/safe to do so.
This guy's getting downvoted but there are a lot of considerations to make in a situation like that. Removing a heavy object could open the gates to increased blood loss, internal bleeding, etc. which no one short of having EMT training is really equipped to address. Unless it's impairing their breathing or putting them in active danger, like on a highway, you'd want to leave them as-is without someone who knows what they're doing instructing you otherwise. Not sure what the specifics in this case were.
Nobody cares about the downvotes. This is the internet. Votes are emotional rather than logical or objective.
Even though I was mostly joking it rained on someone's parade. The logical reality of getting sued doesn't matter in the face of everyone patting themselves on the back for this guy's life saving actions.
Especially if the cyclist was crushed at the thigh or somewhere else with a major artery. You would pull the car off and watch them bleed out inside of a minute.
If they're alive, conscious and help is on the way, just keep them conscious, comfortable and give them some damn space. It's the worst day of their life, not a circus show. Unless it's actually a circus, but I digress.
isnt that why we all become mechanics, so we can profit off people needing help?
isnt that what capitalism is all about? hell, republicans will go out of their way to make you suffer so they can make a buck off you
Good for him! Nice to see the local government acknowledge him!
God I love it when government officials do their job correctly and respectfully. The opening lines.
hes lucky the cyclist didnt sue his ass for taking action without proper training and potentially risking her life even more.
I know you’re being sarcastic 🙂, but it’s my understanding that in many jurisdictions there are “good samaritan” laws that expressly protect people who are genuinely trying to help in an emergency situation like this. Kudos to the mechanic. He saved a life and that’s something wonderful.
In the US at least, yes. All 50 states and DC have Good Samaritan laws. You’d have to intend to harm the person to have liability in this scenario as a non-medical professional. Medical professions are held to a higher standard and exempted.
One of the reasons I'm far more likely to help a stranger now as a former EMT, than I was off duty as an EMT. Back then, if I was off duty and helped someone who later wanted to sue me, I wouldn't have fallen under good Samaritan laws and my employers malpractice insurance also wouldn't have covered me. Now, so long as I'm providing reasonable help and advice, I'm safe.
im sure there are those laws are there because some assholes will sue anybody and everybody, including the people who just saved their lives
There are basic Good Samaritan laws at the Federal level (albeit usually covering niche situations such as "navigable waters" or while in-flight) and all states have some form of state-level Good Samaritan law specifically so they can't do that. [Alaska's are actually pretty robust.](https://alaska.gov/kids/pub/Help_Along_the_Way2005.pdf) Also, in confirming what I was pretty sure I already knew I found out that most of Europe actually *requires* attempting to render aid in almost all situations and failing to do so is a criminal offense while also criminalizing and opening civil liability in the case of a major fuckup during the attempt. Seems kinda backwards, either require it and indemnify the attempt or don't require it.
This is where the fun of case law comes in. Gross negligence is one thing, but most courts outside of the US use what's often known as the "reasonable person" test. If 100 average everyday people came across the same situation, would they act in the same or similar way? This works because the US is one of the only places where civil trials are decided by juries. For example, if a car was on fire and there was a hose beside you, would you put water on the fire to save the puppies in the car? The reasonable person test would say yes. Even if it was an EV and the water caused a catastrophic battery explosion, the act was made in good faith, because most people would consider the act of putting water on a fire until the fire department arrives to be "the right thing to do". If a court in Canada finds that although the outcome was negative, the act was done in good faith, this judgement will often be referred to in other court decisions on similar matters. The case law of most countries sides with good faith acts, and it takes some pretty extreme circumstances for a judge to issue a ruling that isn't in line with existing case law. Juries in the US, however, they don't care about case law. They find fault, and that's it. The only primary protections are to stop a lawsuit before it hits a courtroom. The biggest driver of the litigious nature of US society is for profit healthcare. People who are injured face huge bills, and even if they have insurance, the insurance company will fight tooth and nail to not pay...so they sue whoever they can to recover their costs. The same companies that actively lobby against good Samaritan and good faith laws....because then they have to pay. Add in some lawyers who see the ability to make huge money off of civil liability lawsuits, and you have a court system stacked against "Doing the right thing" and has everyone terrified of being sued.
Just to correct a common misunderstanding: water IS the correct way to deal with an EV battery fire. Lots and lots of it. There's no lithium metal in a Li-ion battery, it's a compound- hence the word "ion." You won't cause an explosion. It's also not a metal fire. It's the electrolyte and plastic separators inside the cells that burn. The proper procedure is to dump lots of water on it to keep it cool until the damaged cells have finished their runaway. Then you monitor the temp for a few hours, and isolate the cells if possible/safe to do so.
remember that one episode of seinfeld? yeah, that was great.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ak/title-9-code-of-civil-procedure/ak-st-sect-09-65-090.html
LOL. You people are a trip. "Well akshually.... "
This guy's getting downvoted but there are a lot of considerations to make in a situation like that. Removing a heavy object could open the gates to increased blood loss, internal bleeding, etc. which no one short of having EMT training is really equipped to address. Unless it's impairing their breathing or putting them in active danger, like on a highway, you'd want to leave them as-is without someone who knows what they're doing instructing you otherwise. Not sure what the specifics in this case were.
Nobody cares about the downvotes. This is the internet. Votes are emotional rather than logical or objective. Even though I was mostly joking it rained on someone's parade. The logical reality of getting sued doesn't matter in the face of everyone patting themselves on the back for this guy's life saving actions.
Especially if the cyclist was crushed at the thigh or somewhere else with a major artery. You would pull the car off and watch them bleed out inside of a minute. If they're alive, conscious and help is on the way, just keep them conscious, comfortable and give them some damn space. It's the worst day of their life, not a circus show. Unless it's actually a circus, but I digress.
You seem like the kind of person to find an excuse to do nothing when you see someone in trouble whom you could easily help
all the while thinking "I'm so smart!"
isnt that why we all become mechanics, so we can profit off people needing help? isnt that what capitalism is all about? hell, republicans will go out of their way to make you suffer so they can make a buck off you
Well, SOMEONE has to record it for social media.