Absolutely shameful.....

[NKRoberts]

so they want 25k for burned hair and melted cell phone?

that's exactly what i was thinking. I didn't see anywhere that said they got burned, just that it melted their hair.

[Hick]

And? If she was trying to kill herself, why did she cry for help?

They chose to put themselves in danger.

End of story.

Really? Have you ever met a women that has NOT done something stupid and needed someone to 'save' her?

I side with the two guys.

[nando]

And? If she was trying to kill herself, why did she cry for help?

They chose to put themselves in danger.

End of story.

she caused the dangerous situation. the two men didn't know the reason for the accident, all they saw was a women who was in danger of being burned to death. Since it wasn't really an "accident" at all, it's her fault that the men were injured saving her.

you're entitled to your opinion but seeing how there is good precedent to this sort of thing, most likely they will win, and it sounds like they deserve to.

it would have been different if it had just been a mechanical failure or some other reason. it's because she crashed essentially on purpose that they have grounds to sue.

and honestly, who gives a crap about some bitch driving a hummer with "spoiled" vanity plates? those men have families to support.

[NKRoberts]

she caused the dangerous situation. the two men didn't know the reason for the accident, all they saw was a women who was in danger of being burned to death. Since it wasn't really an "accident" at all, it's her fault that the men were injured saving her.

you're entitled to your opinion but seeing how there is good precedent to this sort of thing, most likely they will win, and it sounds like they deserve to.

it would have been different if it had just been a mechanical failure or some other reason. it's because she crashed essentially on purpose that they have grounds to sue.

and honestly, who gives a crap about some bitch driving a hummer with "spoiled" vanity plates?

So are they saying that had they known that she caused the accident that they would not have helped her?

[nando]

it doesn't matter.

here's a situation that happens all the time around here - a skiier or snowboarder goes out of bounds or somewhere they aren't supposed to be. They get lost/injured, and a search and rescue crew has to put their lives on the line to save them. Guess who gets to pay for that? Who's responsible if a rescue worker dies or is injured saving their dumb ass? it's always going to be them.

[NKRoberts]

Of course it matters. They only filed the suit after they found out it was a suicide attempt.

[Dozyproductions]

it doesn't matter.

here's a situation that happens all the time around here - a skiier or snowboarder goes out of bounds or somewhere they aren't supposed to be. They get lost/injured, and a search and rescue crew has to put their lives on the line to save them. Guess who gets to pay for that? Who's responsible if a rescue worker dies or is injured saving their dumb ass? it's always going to be them.

bad example. Rescue teams job is to rescue as mentioned in their jobs title.

[z31maniac]

it doesn't matter.

here's a situation that happens all the time around here - a skiier or snowboarder goes out of bounds or somewhere they aren't supposed to be. They get lost/injured, and a search and rescue crew has to put their lives on the line to save them. Guess who gets to pay for that? Who's responsible if a rescue worker dies or is injured saving their dumb ass? it's always going to be them.

I'm not sure comparing a RESCUE WORKER, in other words, someone who is being paid to do THEIR JOB, is the same thing as two random people (most likely not trained for rescue work either) CHOOSING to put themselves in an incredibly dangerous situation.


We will just have to agree to disagree.

[nando]

but the person being rescued is still responsible for the rescuer's injuries if the person being rescued acted in a way that knowingly put their own life in danger. That is the distinction.

most people who are part of rescue efforts are volunteers. it's not really a "job". I've never heard of a rescue worker who got paid, actually.

this isn't about who or why somebody saved them. It's about the person who knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation. that is why they have grounds to sue.

[homegrone30]

she caused the dangerous situation. the two men didn't know the reason for the accident, all they saw was a women who was in danger of being burned to death. Since it wasn't really an "accident" at all, it's her fault that the men were injured saving her.

you're entitled to your opinion but seeing how there is good precedent to this sort of thing, most likely they will win, and it sounds like they deserve to.

it would have been different if it had just been a mechanical failure or some other reason. it's because she crashed essentially on purpose that they have grounds to sue.

and honestly, who gives a crap about some bitch driving a hummer with "spoiled" vanity plates? those men have families to support.

^^^ This! If I put a gun to my head to kill myself, and you pull said gun away and wind up being shot trying to save my life. You wouldn't expect some compensation?

[NKRoberts]

^^^ This! If I put a gun to my head to kill myself, and you pull said gun away and wind up being shot trying to save my life. You wouldn't expect some compensation?

That is a horrible example. If you have a gun to your head I am pretty sure I know what you are doing. If I see someone in a mangled car most people think it was an accident not a suicide attempt.

[z31maniac]

but the person being rescued is still responsible for the rescuer's injuries if the person being rescued acted in a way that knowingly put their own life in danger. That is the distinction.

most people who are part of rescue efforts are volunteers. it's not really a "job". I've never heard of a rescue worker who got paid, actually.

this isn't about who or why somebody saved them. It's about the person who knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation. that is why they have grounds to sue.

Yes, but they CHOSE to try and save her. That's the distinction I find important.

[NKRoberts]

this isn't about who or why somebody saved them. It's about the person who knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation. that is why they have grounds to sue.

I agree THEY put themselves in the situation, the chose to do it, did they think they were superman and were going to be able to pull her out unscathed?

[Dozyproductions]

but the person being rescued is still responsible for the rescuer's injuries if the person being rescued acted in a way that knowingly put their own life in danger. That is the distinction.

most people who are part of rescue efforts are volunteers. it's not really a "job". I've never heard of a rescue worker who got paid, actually.

this isn't about who or why somebody saved them. It's about the person who knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation. that is why they have grounds to sue.

totally agreeing with you, just not the greatest example.

Yes, but they CHOSE to try and save her. That's the distinction I find important.

Refer my post on the first page about the doctor.

[Hick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_doctrine