DM Liability

[HammerNoMore]

* emphasis added by me

I actually think that what James is saying in the bit you quoted is also what AzAtty is saying. My take is that this (what James is saying) applies at least in the United States. It's also clear that there are "many" part of the world (some European countries for example) where this isn't the case at all.

R..

That's the problem with ignores...people end up quoting the people you are ignoring...oh well.

Actually I think you have that backwards. My statement was meant to apply outside the US, not in.

Just to be clear:

voop indicated that in his country they have duty to resuce laws. Here in the US, all states (I think) have good samaritan protection in some form or another. The former is usually an extension of the latter, and a few states here also have duty to rescue laws.

However, outside the US and other countries where these laws exist, there is no liablity protection under the law for good samaritans. In these areas (and in some with legal protection), once you take action, you then have a duty of care to follow. In some cases, simply following this duty of care is enough to provide you legal protection, in others even following duty of care does not provide you with protection.

These are the legal issues. The moral issues are an enitrely differnt story. IMHO, if you see someone in need of rescue, you should do so, but you should not volunteer any information about any training you may have.

James

 

[jhelmuth]

James Goddard -

I agree with michaelp68. You are either trolling (bad moderator!), or you are not willing to admit you made statements that you can't back up as "fact". Either case is sad.

I really think Pete ought to call you on this one. As a moderator, you ought to set a standard that is at least as high as what is expected from the general user public. Util you come clean on this, you'll forever remain suspicious in my mind as a troll.

 

[HammerNoMore]

James Goddard -

I agree with michaelp68. You are either trolling (bad moderator!), or you are not willing to admit you made statements that you can't back up as "fact". Either case is sad.

I really think Pete ought to call you on this one. As a moderator, you ought to set a standard that is at least as high as what is expected from the general user public. Util you come clean on this, you'll forever remain suspicious in my mind as a troll.

That's fine. In the face of logic you two respond with nothing but insults. I've been accused of not backing up a statement I never made, but I get no response to the questions I ask. So be it. Call me what you wish. We all can read and decide for ourselves. *plonk*

 

[michaelp68]

* emphasis added by me

I actually think that what James is saying in the bit you quoted is also what AzAtty is saying. My take is that this (what James is saying) applies at least in the United States. It's also clear that there are "many" part of the world (some European countries for example) where this isn't the case at all.

R..

Diver0001, I think we all agree that in some places around the world, once one of us tries to give assistance, we have assumed a duty of care and a standard of care will be applied to us. We might get dragged into a lawsuit. We might even be found liable.

The chance of being dragged into a lawsuit varies around the world. Also, the chance of us being found liable also varies around the world. Of course, the duties of care, the standards of care and the good samaritan protections all vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.

However, James stated on this Board that in some areas, by lifting a finger help, you will be liable. Telling people that they 'will be liable' is rather extreme. If James has no fact to support such a representation, then he should not have made it in the first place. And when he was initially asked about it by me (when I simply asked, "where"), he should have answered or retracted his representation as mistaken or unfounded.

Michael

 

[AnZal]

I vas trained by zee Germanz ..... Zey said if i don't comply, i vill be shot !! I complied .....

 

[The Chairman]

Having read the entire "debate", let me make a few observations...

Trying to back anyone into a corner just "to win" a point or an argument is senseless. Y'all have been doing that to James. It's to the point where you are badgering him over definitions just to get a concession! I’m sorry, but his is NOT a debate board... it is a place where we ENCOURAGE a free exchange of ideas. You don't have to agree with any of the ideas presented, but please do not attempt to bully the man into submission either! No one is required to provide proof of anything, and to “report” that they didn't only makes me wonder at the motives here. Reporting posts is reserved for when people violate the TOS like calling someone a name. Not agreeing with you or refusing to provide you with “proof” is simply NOT a violation of the TOS.

On top of that, James’ logic looks good, but the other’s logic has a few holes in it. Let’s take a look:

The US says X is legal.
A foreign country says nothing about it.
James says, you better be careful because you might be liable for X in a foreign country.
You say “Prove it James”.
But the foreign country has said nothing about it, and it's impossible to find "nothing".
You say "See I was right!"
This is a classic “This does not follow (non sequitur)” scenario

In fact the only way to prove James wrong would be to find Good Samaritan laws from each and every country in the world. However, if you plan on traveling... it might be prudent to determine what is legal there BEFORE you go, instead of assuming that the other countries base their jurisprudence on US law.

BTW, for those of you who think that James and I are simply “buds”… well you might check his first few posts on this board. To say he was upset with me is quite an understatement.

You may now resume your discourse.

 

[jhelmuth]

Having read the entire "debate", let me make a few observations...

Trying to back anyone into a corner just "to win" a point or an argument is senseless. Y'all have been doing that to James. It's to the point where you are badgering him over definitions just to get a concession! I’m sorry, but his is NOT a debate board... it is a place where we ENCOURAGE a free exchange of ideas. You don't have to agree with any of the ideas presented, but please do not attempt to bully the man into submission either! No one is required to provide proof of anything, and to “report” that they didn't only makes me wonder at the motives here. Reporting posts is reserved for when people violate the TOS like calling someone a name. Not agreeing with you or refusing to provide you with “proof” is simply NOT a violation of the TOS.

On top of that, James’ logic looks good, but the other’s logic has a few holes in it. Let’s take a look:

The US says X is legal.
A foreign country says nothing about it.
James says, you better be careful because you might be liable for X in a foreign country.
You say “Prove it James”.
But the foreign country has said nothing about it, and it's impossible to find "nothing".
You say "See I was right!"
This is a classic “This does not follow (non sequitur)” scenario

In fact the only way to prove James wrong would be to find Good Samaritan laws from each and every country in the world. However, if you plan on traveling... it might be prudent to determine what is legal there BEFORE you go, instead of assuming that the other countries base their jurisprudence on US law.

BTW, for those of you who think that James and I are simply “buds”… well you might check his first few posts on this board. To say he was upset with me is quite an understatement.

You may now resume your discourse.

However in many parts of the world if you so much as lift a finger to help, and a person suffers ill effects because of, or in spite of your aid, you are liable.

Hey man, it's your board - so you'll always be right (no problem). My observed experience with James (and others on this board) is to sometimes spew without having his/her facts straight. I originally replied that I'd hoped for specifics - but that the one generalization from the State Dept was fine with me.

Well, I was looking for you to tell us about specific cases - but I guess that'll have to do...

That was until James used the "I don't have to tell you my sources" line. He's right (he doesn’t have to back up his statements), but it makes him look like a fabricator of facts (something he will have to live with). What’s more, James was fairly derogatory…

Once again you feel that I am obligated to do research for you so let me thow you a bone and look up liable for you:

liable - At risk of or subject to experiencing or suffering something unpleasant.

(throwing one a bone is a slander toward the stature of the intended – IE, they are beneath you, or are a dog), as well as a slighted definition of liable. Normally Pete, I think you’d tolerate the “throw you a bone remark”, but I’m not so sure this is appropriate from on of you moderators.
(to which I provided the complete definition from Webster’s Collegiate edition – please see post # 51)
Even then, I'd have been OK to leave it there, but you picked him as a moderator. That reflects on the community here. Like it or not, this reflects on you and it also does not reflect the general high esteem of the moderators (they are great people with few exceptions).

I’m sorry if this comes off in anyway that anyone feels as negative. These are facts as they are recorded here (other than my opinions of content and context). My sincere apologies to all concerned if I am wrong. It would have been much easier if James would have put MichaelP68 in his place by citing his sources. It would have really given him a great deal of credibility.

 

[jhelmuth]

Oh yea.. and I appologize for having hijacked this thread. It was unintentional and I will stop as of this post.

Again, my appologies to all here.

Jim

 

[The Chairman]

At the risk of further "hi-jacking"... it may be my board, but I am seldom "right". Just ask my kids or even my wife!

The spirit of James' initial post was not that of "spewing" anything but caution. Whilst the wording could have been clearer, the intent was obviously not to make a blanket statement (which he has denied doing so repeatedly) but to make a blanket caveat. You can choose to ignore it at your peril.

As for the "bone" comment. I feel very few people see it as deprecating in any but the mildest of ways. It is not unsual to ask others to "throw me a bone" as popularised by Dr. Evil. Given that one is almost equally as likely to throw or recieve the bone, it makes it more benign than anything else.

For what it's worth, moderators are allowed to have their own opinions... even strong ones. We even go so far as to make sure that the mods fully understand that we are NOT asking them to change or be different. If we paid them that would be a horse of a different color. But they were asked to volunteer based on their current eccentricities, and by gum, we want them to stay that way. I am the only one on the board required to operate under a "different set of rules". As for disagreeing with me, I very rarely draw a "trump card" and throw my weight around... and then only when I percieve that people's safety is at stake.

Again for what it's worth, given his entrance onto this board, Probably no one was as surprised at being asked to be a moderator as James was. Well, maybe one other. She thought I was writing her to tell her she was banned.

 

[Diver0001]

...snip... However, James stated on this Board that in some areas, by lifting a finger help, you will be liable. Telling people that they 'will be liable' is rather extreme. If James has no fact to support such a representation, then he should not have made it in the first place. And when he was initially asked about it by me (when I simply asked, "where"), he should have answered or retracted his representation as mistaken or unfounded.

Michael

I see. And if James just says that he's not a lawyer and that when he said "will be liable" he really meant "can be dragged into court" (which, in fact, is what I thought he was trying to say), the the discussion is sorted..... right?

R..