Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i guess it's pretty hard not to yell for help when you're on fire, even if you just tried to commit suicide.
OK when she aimed for the tree she may or may not have intended to actually end her life. But when she was on fire she wanted the pain to stop. After her attempt failed to give prompt results she may have rethought her choices as well. I saw the aftermath of an accident once. Someone nocked over a power poll. They said that they were trying to turn into the driveway and didn't make it. It was snowy and it takes a lot of force to sever a 12" pine log. I'd say 50 mph was how fast they hit the poll. That was an attempted suicide (as far as i can tell). But for the airbag it would have worked.
It can be that surviving an attempt on your life even by you gives you a different perspective to look at things from.
Ahh, there is no case here. They chose to do it, they knew the possibilities of getting injured and they still did it. It will be thrown out for sure. These people would have sued anyway, they are using this suicide thing as an excuse, it won't work though. They are responsible for their own actions. This victim mentality in this country is getting out of hand, everyone wants to sue someone for some ridiculous reason or another, even if it is their own fault. With the logic you are using, then anyone who tries to save someone from jumping off a bridge or building gets to sue the victim if they get injured in the process? I have a hard time understanding this.
Also, to answer your child being hit by a car analogy, why do innocent drivers who kill someone with their car at no fault of their own get charged with vehicular manslaughter?
As I said .... "it's amazing how it always seems to be the same individuals, regardless of topic, who consistently land on the wrong end of every debate". And bada bing, bada boom, there you are, right on Que. If nothing else, you and the other usual suspects defy the laws of mathematics, which would suggest that eventually you'd have to pick the right argument to support, even if accidentally.
Number one ... your analogy seems to presume that the aid givers in this case knew it was an intentional act, which I see no evidence to support, such that would be applicable to witnessing someone standing on the ledge of a building, preparing to jump. Most bystanders in that situation might attempt to talk them out of it, but would be highly unlikely to climb out onto the 30 story ledge, and attempt to wrestle them back inside (including police or rescue workers). On the other hand, someone coming along after an "accident", simply sees the results, not the lead up to the event. In this case, they saw a woman trapped in a burning vehicle, and these men acted courageously and selflessly to try to save her ... which apparently, they managed to do, but not without injury to themselves. Completely different scenario. Does that help distinguish the differences for you? Probably not.
In the case of an "innocent" driver killing someone through no fault of their own .... they are not guilty of anything ... with the big clues being the "innocent" and "no fault of their own" parts. In that scenario, no one is going to be charged with manslaughter if that is true, and they are innocently driving down the road, and some nut jumps out in front of their vehicle.
But, if their blood analysis shows intoxication .... or they were speeding when the fatal accident happened, then the accident could be viewed by the police as being related to intoxication or excessive speed, which would then be up to a court to decide if they were at fault or not. And even in those circumstances, that's not always going to determine guilt. If someone were to leap out in front of your car .... it wouldn't matter if you were driving 40 mph or 80 mph ... at either speed, you cannot stop instantly to avoid the impact. But if you have beer on your breath, you're totally screwed ... thanks to the liberal nanny state ... you'll likely face the harshest of charges regardless of circumstances, because if you're drunk in this day and age, someone can rear end you while sitting at a red light ... and you're going to jail, and they are going to walk free.
Of course, you're all in favor that. How do I know? Just a wild guess
The me stopped to help. They acted morally in an immoral society. If anyone should be sued, then its the men for interference. Also for destruction of the vehicle as they were rescuing and manhandling as they pulled victim to safety.
Gosh, I am British. I swear you Americans are making the rest of the world crazy with your daily bs.
if you want to see bs, then all you have to do is to go to europe or washington dc.....ooops, you are already there.
She was screaming for help. They helped. They put their lives in danger for her. Now if she said, let me burn, I'm trying to kill myself, and they chose to help her anyways, then no, they shouldn't sue her.
I think that because of her, they might be reluctant to help someone in real need, the next time. Hopefully, there will not be a next time.
What a messed up situation.
Yes and she did change her mind about wanting to and attempting to die by her actions which makes her responsible for her actions. Normally I wouldn't agree to a good samaritan suing for helping and saving a life but in this situation it seems only fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2
Hmm. Intention to cause harm follows the actions. She intended to kill herself and so the accident was deliberate. They were injured as a result of her deliberate actions suing is appropriate.
Yes I see it that way too. It sounds like she deliberately used her vehicle to kill herself. She didn't think when she was upset about the consequences of her actions when upset at the time she was driving. Because she deliberately ran herself off the road causing the accident she is responsible. Even if they were hired and paid employees of the fire/resque squad she would still be held responsible and have to make restitution one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
Now I can see why suicide is against the law---you can pull other people to their deaths when you do it---how fair and smart is that. Yes, you create a horrible situation you need to pay.
Yes especially when stupid enough to do it out in public where anyone can stop you or end up getting involved like these two men did. Especially when the suicidal person changes their mind at the last minute and calls for help. What if it had been two young people trying to help and they died trying or these two died wouldn't she have to make restitution for her actions that led to their death? Why should this be any different? If they weren't hurt or didn't have any health problems from this then I see the lawsuit being nothing but bs. One thing is what the one guy said about him still doing the same all over again because a life is a life that IMO could hurt his case, I hope it doesn't and I hope she has good Auto Insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If nothing else, you and the other usual suspects defy the laws of mathematics, which would suggest that eventually you'd have to pick the right argument to support, even if accidentally.
