2 men sue woman they saved

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