2 men sue woman they saved

shadowcast

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/c ... source=rss

Come on.

arq

:shock: I would save your life but you have to pay for it later WTF?

Claireack

Eh????

Hugh Freaking Dillon

wow, that's about as low as you can go.

pandora

If I was that woman, I would not want someone suffering because of
my mistake.
I would be thankful for them saving me and want to pay
for any health, medical bills, disabilities that I caused.

I'd say sue me ... let the insurance companies fight it out
and hopefully they would be reimbursed for bills and suffering
by the mega f'n rich insurance company.

If not I would try to repay them for what I had caused.

Jeanwah

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

wow, that's about as low as you can go.

Yea! Sheesh, perhaps the guy should think about the fact that he's risking his life before he decides to be a hero again. He may just change his mind about doing a life-saving deed.

JOEJOEJOE

Stories like this are the reason I am so cynical!

Tenzing N.

She crashed ON PURPOSE.

Sue away gentlemen, sue away!!!!

If they had stood there watching as she died her family would be suing them.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Tenzing N. wrote:

She crashed ON PURPOSE.

I must have missed that part of the story.

mickeyrat

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Tenzing N. wrote:

She crashed ON PURPOSE.

I must have missed that part of the story.

WHO says? Have any of us seen the crash report? I didnt read that in the initial story. Its true because the suit they filed says so?

Tenzing N.

The Highway Patrol report syas she crashed into the guardrail on purpose. That's who says.

I'd sue too.

Jeanwah

Tenzing N. wrote:

The Highway Patrol report syas she crashed into the guardrail on purpose. That's who says.

I'd sue too.

I just read this, I didn't realize it the first time. When did she notify highway patrol that she was interested in ending her life? When the flames were melting her hair? Doesn't make sense to me. Something's fishy.

mickeyrat

Tenzing N. wrote:

She crashed ON PURPOSE.

Sue away gentlemen, sue away!!!!

If they had stood there watching as she died her family would be suing them.

I see where its possibe to read that into it but.....


heres the quote from the story
The Highway Patrol report of the crash indicated that Tanner, 28, told authorities that she had wanted to end her life that day after an argument and had crashed into a bridge guardrail. Tanner also told investigators she didn't remember anything after that, according to the report.



as far I can tell , it doesnt say specifically that she crashed on purpose

Tenzing N.

OK- you're right, it doesn't say the crash was on purpose but if I was the lawyer representing the men I would easily argue that her mental state made her unsafe to be driving.

mickeyrat

Tenzing N. wrote:

OK- you're right, it doesn't say the crash was on purpose but if I was the lawyer representing the men I would easily argue that her mental state made her unsafe to be driving.

any money grubbing "I'll take the case for %40 + expenses" attorney worth their salt will argue that very thing.

Tenzing N.

And that salty lawyer should win!

catefrances

mickeyrat wrote:

Tenzing N. wrote:

OK- you're right, it doesn't say the crash was on purpose but if I was the lawyer representing the men I would easily argue that her mental state made her unsafe to be driving.

any money grubbing "I'll take the case for %40 + expenses" attorney worth their salt will argue that very thing.

and then i as the defense attorney would argue that how can we possibly know this womens state of mind right before impact.. she may well simply have lost concentration. were there skidmarks? if so, what was their length? and what, if anything does this tell us? did she try to arrest her speed or did she not have time before her car impacted with the guard rail?

Tenzing N.

Well then I would argue that regardless of the circumstances of the crash the woman should NOT have been behind the wheel due to MENTAL STATE!

You're taking for granted the priveledge of driving a vehicle. What if this had been a pilot in flight? How about a doctor in an operation?

Additionally I would assume that there would have been consequences had the men NOT assisted. This fact eliminates the voluntary nature of self endangerment.

I'm open to counter argument...

catefrances

Tenzing N. wrote:

Well then I would argue that regardless of the circumstances of the crash the woman should NOT have been behind the wheel due to MENTAL STATE!

You're taking for granted the priveledge of driving a vehicle. What if this had been a pilot in flight? How about a doctor in an operation?

Additionally I would assume that there would have been consequences had the men NOT assisted. This fact eliminates the voluntary nature of self endangerment.

I'm open to counter argument...

oh i am absolutely not overlooking that driving is a privilege not some rite of passage.. or even a right.

ive expressed more than once my desire to not be here anymore and i have driven a car along a dark country rode sizing up trees thinking about just that. does this mean i shouldnt have been driving? i dont think so.. simpkly because at those moments i was driving i wasnt actively seeking to end my life. had i been startled by oncoming lights or swereved to avoid a dumbarse kangaroo and struck one of those trees, it could be argued that at the time of impact i was suicidal.. even though i know i wasnt. but when asked by the prosecuting attorney had i thoughts of ending my life, id be obliged, under threat of perjury to answer yes. and continuing with that line of questioning, if asked was i thinking of ending my life that night, id also, again under threat of perjury be obliged to answer in the affirmative. hwoever that doesnt mean that at that particular point ending my life was my intention. it just means i was thinking about it and in some warped sense of whothefuckknowswhat, the universe decided to throw me a bone.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

the woman's mental state or intentions are irrelevant. the guys who went to save her made a choice. a choice they now regret. too effing bad in my opinion.

I regret banging that chick that looked like Kirk Hammet, but I'm not suing her for my inability to listen to Metallica anymore, am I?

catefrances

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

the woman's mental state or intentions are irrelevant. the guys who went to save her made a choice. a choice they now regret.

I regret banging that chick that looked like Kirk Hammet, but I'm not suing her for my inability to listen to Metallica anymore, am I?

ive never been able to listen to metallica. some see it as a flaw i see it as good taste.



and i agree.. those men made the choice. and it was a good choice to try and save a life.

Tenzing N.

But I'm not arguing intent. That's not possible and highly defensible. I'm arguing negligence. Possibly even gross negligence but I would stop at just plain negligence.

To argue intent I would have to prove that she intended to harm any rescuers by crashing her car which I suppose could be argued in a circumstance where she intentionally crashed in front of a group of people.

Tenzing N.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

the woman's mental state or intentions are irrelevant. the guys who went to save her made a choice. a choice they now regret. too effing bad in my opinion.

Possibly... I would, however, argue that the original choice was hers and does NOT relieve the obligation of the bystander who consequently has limited knowledge but not limited personal liability.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Tenzing N. wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

the woman's mental state or intentions are irrelevant. the guys who went to save her made a choice. a choice they now regret. too effing bad in my opinion.

Possibly... I would, however, argue that the original choice was hers and does NOT relieve the obligation of the bystander who consequently has limited knowledge but not limited personal liability.

yes, BUT the original choice does not guarantee the fact that it might put someone else in danger, therefore there is no real intent nor negligence.

Tenzing N.

Of course not intent- I'm sticking to willful negligence. Resonable knowlege that her actions COULD have harmed others- evidenced, of course, by the fact that they DID harm others.

She made the decision that resulted in an action that could very resonably put someone else in danger.

Would you not agree that someone who has been drinking should not drive because there is the possibility that they may harm someone else?

One could make the argument that the same impairment of judgement exists regardless of possible impairment of ability and thus qualifies as negligence.

Tenzing N.

If I was the attorney I would immediately argue that if her state of mind was such that she felt the need to tell the Highway Patrol then it was certainly a factor in her ability to operate the vehicle and thus directly posed a threat to others both potentially and actively.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Tenzing N. wrote:

Of course not intent- I'm sticking to willful negligence. Resonable knowlege that her actions COULD have harmed others- evidenced, of course, by the fact that they DID harm others.

She made the decision that resulted in an action that could very resonably put someone else in danger.

Would you not agree that someone who has been drinking should not drive because there is the possibility that they may harm someone else?

One could make the argument that the same impairment of judgement exists regardless of possible impairment of ability and thus qualifies as negligence.

let's put it in a different scenario. let's say a woman jumped from a building, trying to end her own life. had she:

1) landed on someone, survived, but the other person was either killed or maimed permenantly

2) she landed and almost died, but there was someone near her that decided to pick her up and carry her to the closest hospital, saving her life, but then ended up with a debilitating back issue because of it.

#1 is lawsuit material.
#2 is where this scenario lies. and it is a choice on the part of the supposed "victim" (the 'hero', as it were). too bad so sad, buddy. no one forced you to do anything.

Tenzing N.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm sleepy.

Good night