ypt question

[clemlaw]

>>>>>.I have heard these types of topics from people in our area who are scared to death of either doing something or not doing something for fear of being sued. And to be quite honest, it rattles their cages so bad that they would rather stand in the middle of the road and get run over by a semi than make a decision one way or the other.

[dennis99ss]

I love it.

 

almost as bad as did you know there was a problem? yes. Did you know that the problem would effect the plaintiff? yes. did you tell the plaintiff to warn them? no. should you have? yes. If you did, would this have occurred? no.

 

Sit down, grab a drink of water, and pass the witness while the jury sits their shaking their head at the dummy on the stand

[Eagle007]

dennis and clem, Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has been my experience that it is not who is right or wrong in either a criminal or civil trial but who presents the best and most dramatic case to the jury. The jury could be comprised of a bunch of (pardon the phrase) idiots who will believe anything. And as long as either side has them eating out of their hand then that side has won the case. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the way it is. It's nothing but a game.

 

There was a time, long, long ago, when life was a lot simpler. But we have done a good job at making things so complicated and complex that I wonder sometimes if certain situations are worth the effort.

[dennis99ss]

the lawyer with the most paper wins.

 

really though, I honestly believe that juries see what is right and wrong. Do they get swayed by presentation, yes, but, presentation only goes so far. There must be some backup for it.

 

The Plaintiff's job is to inject emotion into the case. The defendant's job is to cut through the emotion, slow the process down a bit, and attempt to piece by piece convince the jury that the emotion is unfounded on the specific facts. Depending on how good or bad the facts are, determines which way the jury goes.

 

I also honestly believe that trials take place, for the most part, because one of the lawyers did not do his job. If the lawyer does his job, he can estimate, fairly clearly, what a jury will say. He will know what all the witnesses say and what all the documents reveal. If there is a case that the parties are far apart, you have a situation where someone is not looking at the facts correctly. there are, of course, exceptions.

[clemlaw]

Well, the case of "I did it so I wouldn't get sued" was decided by a judge, but if there had been a jury, I bet they would have ruled the same way.

 

Yes, there are many cases that could go either way, so perhaps drama is the deciding factor in some cases. But some cases are dramatic for a reason. If the defendant's negligence is of dramatic proportions, then you really can't blame the jury for being swayed by drama.

 

And if the defendant is busy taking down tents when he should be heading for the hospital, you really can't blame the plaintiff's lawyer for making the jury aware of these dramatic facts.

 

Jurors typically take their jobs seriously and do a good job. But when a reporter comes along and writes a hundred words implying that some particular jury did not do so, this is the one time when everyone forgets that they distrust The Media almost as much as they distrust lawyers, and they believe every last word that's written in the newspaper.

 

[Scoutfish]

Two things:

 

But first - Each state has it's own laws and such,so there are/may be some differences depending where you are.

 

1) Good Samaritan is not limited to trained, professional,or paid people. I seperated paid from professional because professional is an attitude and not actually limited to getting paid or not.

 

Good samaritan is just exactly trhat: Samaritans. People who...under good intentuionds and good faith try to help and assist. Suppose you wreck your car, flip over and end up trapped in the car and it catches fire. Gas is leaking and it could possibly explode.

 

So a GOOD SAMARITAN ( emphasis, not yelling) decides to do the good deed and pull you out of the car. As it turns out, you had a minor neck injury and the good samaritan makes it worse when he pulls you out. Matter of fact, because the good samaritan grabbed your arns and your head bobbed , you are now a paraplegic.

 

You sue thatgood samaritan. And yeah, juries can be swayed, but a judge with any sense would tell that jury as wellas the plaintiff and lawyer that the other option to being a paraplegic was being a crispy chunk of coal in the burnt out shell of a car! The good samaritan( while not perfect) acted in a way that resuylted in you being in the lesser of two bad positions. Mainly, being alive.

 

2) Where it comes into play with EMS, fire, and PD is the same thing, but with a bit more restriction. Nobody can foresee every single circumstance. Hindsight is 20/20, but is still hindsight.

 

As a professional ( trained, certified, and active) firefighter/EMS/water rescue person, as long as I acted within my training to the best of my ability, I was covered by good samaritan. At least in the state of NC.

BUT...had I acted in a manner or attempted to do something above my level of training when not imminently adverting death...I could be liable. Meaning if somebody got stung by a bee and said that their throat felt funny...I could not perform a trachiotimy ( you'd think I'd know the right way to spell it) and be covered ..especially if the victem was still breathing AND I had no training in it.

 

Likewise, as a NC certified Emergency Medical Technician, I was not trained or certified to give IV'sa , shots, drugs, etc. So If I gave you a shot and something went wrong...I'd be liable.

 

But again, even in those circumstances, I could stil be protected.

 

Suppose you are a diabetic, end up in circumstances where you cannot physically give yourself an insulin shot. Any help is too far out to assist. You ask me to give you that shout, If I do, I am doing it in good faith and protected ..ASSUMING that I do it in good faith , AND that bigger ,more serious issued will develop if I don't.

 

 

But back to the case at hand. Stuff happens. Usually, we can reasonably plan ahead and work out "what if" scenerios. But every now and trhen, something happens that we cannot foresee or plan fore. In that case, acting in what you honestly feel is the right and prudent thing to do( based on the info you have at the time) will end up with you being covered by Good Samaritan laws.