12 Comments

Normally I come down on the anti-lawsuit side for a lot of things, and that was my knee-jerk reaction in this case. After thinking about it, it is not clear cut. Yes, the men voluntarily tried to save her, and as such they assumed the risks of injury and even death. They were clearly entering a hazardous situation.
On the other hand, if they did end up with hefty medical bills and reduced quality of life, is it so bad that they are after compensation?

Are they suing or is their insurance company suing?

I would prefer to think, until the returns are in, that this suit entered into by their health care provider.

Bob

So what does the law actually say about this? Say I do a negligent but not uncommon thing like run a red light and hit another car. I’m clearly at fault, and the other drivers are entitled to recover from me. If a bystander is injured rescuing me, can they recover as well?

(1) As one commenter on the original article noted, the health expenses of the rescuers would not be an issue in a society that had universal health insurance.

(2) Another commenter noted that his anti-lawsuit reflexes tripped up when he read further down that the woman was not a routine involuntary accident victim, but instead had attempted suicide.

Cardozo wrote that “danger invites rescue”, Wagner v. Intl. Railway Co., 133 N.E. 437 (NY 1921).

How would you distinguish this case from Wagner?

Interesting that someone would feel that universal health insurance is an answer here. My experience with the product would lead me to believe that if two people were equally hurt in the rescue attempt and treated equally with universal health, only one would be alive now. Note that with universal, government run health care, you are accepting a far inferior product to what you currently receive. Yes, I know that American health care is terrible, I am well aware of all the stats that indicate dismal mortality and morbidity results, but then I know how the numbers are generated and where the results come from. If you want a good look at what to expect in the future, contact me and I will take you on a personal tour of LSU Health Care and you will leave scared to death. This is the model for what to expect. By the way, the two men would have to wait for about 48 hours for treatment for something as simple as burns (real life observation). But universal health is what the American people want, and they will get it.

If I choose to become a parent, father a child, and the child gives me grief with not fulfilling my expectations, should I sue for my “grief”. Should I sue Netflix because I rented Saving Private Ryan, Schlindler’s List, or The Exorcist, because I am “haunted” by the images. Should I sue because I chose to be a Good Samaritan by returning a lost wallet, and now I am having trouble paying my bills in this economy? I made a choice in each of these situations, and will live by my decisions. A person living in the USA 50 years ago would have said the question is idiotic. And it is.

I purchase auto insurance to pay for damages in case of a car accident. If someone is injured attempting to rescue me or someone I injured in an accident, why shouldn’t the insurance I paid for cover those damages? They may be suing the woman in name, but they are really asking her insurer to pay for damages resulting from the accident. I don’t see any problem with this. That’s what insurance is for.

she tried to commit suicide, then started to scream for help after the crash

the 2 good faith rescuers were seriously injured trying to help her

i am usually pretty sceptical about most personal injury lawsuits, but here i would have done the same thing

@Hugo S. Cunningham:
“(1) As one commenter on the original article noted, the health expenses of the rescuers would not be an issue in a society that had universal health insurance.”

Really? And, why would that be? The US and state governments all have laws providing for them to bring subrogation actions. In the case of the federal government, it is technically not a subrogation action, but an independent right, with a lien that has priority over all other claims. A settlement by the injured person does not extinguish right of the US, which can proceed against the original tortfeasor, his/her insurer, the injured person who received any judgment or settlement proceeds, and/or the attorney who disbursed any judgment or settlement proceeds without obtaining a release from the US. The HHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services routinely asserts claims for amounts paid under Medicare when those care costs were proximately caused by a tort. States are supposed to assert claims for Medicaid care costs against tortfeasors, and some have pretty effective programs. As budgets tighten, this source of revenue will likely be increasingly be pursued.

Why should this change under “universal health care”? IMO, that would likely increase the number of such claims. Since if it is a debt owed the US, the US can seize tax refunds, Social Security payments, pensions, and most other assets, and even bankruptcy will not extinguish the debt. Further, there will be an incentive for the US to pressure the states to ensure that all persons have much higher auto liability insurance coverages, and probably have other forms of liability insurance. And, with tightening state budgets, there will be an incentive for the states to require such, as well.

You will pay for “universal health care”, even if you don’t realize all the ways that the costs can and will be extracted from your wallet.

Please let’s don’t make this a flamewar about health care.

Let’s instead point out that this is a perfect example of why you should read the article rather than just the headline.