Man rescued from submerged car sues dive team.

[kelemvor]

Can we sue him for stupidity? Perhaps I should rephrase that as "It is my opinion that he should be sued for stupidity"

This Could Very Well Be The Stupidest Person On The Face Of The Earth - YouTube

 

[agesilaus]

OK I just heard the lawyer on Fox radio (around 2:20 PM EDT) and he got some sharp questions. First this fellow in the car doesn't seem to have insurance. I'm sure CO has a mandatory insurance requirement. A quick check online shows that they do require insurance for personal injury. So why isn't his insurance taking care of his medical bills?

Probably because he is not in this country legally, doesn't speak English and probably doesn't have a drivers license.

He decided to assume the risk of driving uninsured and now he wants to pass it on to the people who saved him.

 

[kwinter]

Ok, being the voice of dissent here as on another forum. Everyone is so quick to jump to conclusions without any facts whatsoever.

Hypothetical: The man drove off a flooded bridge and didn't have insurance. He is stupid and illegal, but still entitled to rights. Police or fire dive unit shows up and sends a man down. The man assumes there is no one in the car and surfaces to wait for the tow truck. A half hour later he returns to the car to start hooking it up and finally notices there is someone inside breathing from a small air pocket. Oops.

You can bet your ass the guy and the organization deserve to be sued. Procedures were not followed. Protocol was broken. And there is a price to pay for not acting according to standard procedures and guidelines.

I'm not saying this is what happened. But it is just as likely as any other scenario without getting more facts. I don't think any of the people who chimed in during the first 50 posts would be above suing a fire department if they entered your house while it was burning and focused only on dousing the flames while your family members were trapped and burning to death.

 

[Jared0425]

Has anyone ever searched cars in fast moving river with zero vis and multiple vehicles in the water? I have, and it is quite easy to break it, especially in a hurry. And by being in this country illegally, he has no right to sue.

 

[nimoh]

Has anyone ever searched cars in fast moving river with zero vis and multiple vehicles in the water? I have, and it is quite easy to break it, especially in a hurry. And by being in this country illegally, he has no right to sue.

sure.
1. Communicate to the surface that you made contact and to keep tension on the line holding you in one place
2. break the glass and look inside -- a person in the car breathing in an air pocket would be likely to grab your arm
2a: found someone? call for help
3. stay on the upstream side in case there toxins being released from the car
4. when search is complete, make a brief excursion to the downstream side to check for any bodies

total time: roughly 2 minutes (after finding the car)...why would you be in a hurry?

Also, there is nothing to suggest that this person was an illegal immigrant other than hypothetical speculation a few posts back.

Furthermore, there is not enough information in the story posted, or in this whole thread to make a decision on whether or not the rescue/recovery team was negligent. Perhaps they were negligent, or perhaps the guy is an idiot looking for a payout. The courts usually side with the rescuers, it would have to be pretty gross negligence for a successful law suit...if the rescuers says that he didn't see him in the car, that is probably a good enough defense.

 

[Jared0425]

What you are saying is easier said than done. As I mentioned above, when having multiple cars to search and very few divers on scene (large county), we have to search and move on. Now the way we searched the vehicles, the only way a diver would have missed (in my experience) was if he was in the trunk or curled up under the dash (child size). We asked owners of the vehicle before hand if they saw anyone or was traveling with anyone. If nothing or no one is found, then we wait for conditions to get better and then start towing the cars out.

 

[Mike]

Hypothetical: The man drove off a flooded bridge and didn't have insurance. He is stupid and illegal, but still entitled to rights. Police or fire dive unit shows up and sends a man down. The man assumes there is no one in the car and surfaces to wait for the tow truck. A half hour later he returns to the car to start hooking it up and finally notices there is someone inside breathing from a small air pocket. Oops.

You can bet your ass the guy and the organization deserve to be sued. Procedures were not followed. Protocol was broken. And there is a price to pay for not acting according to standard procedures and guidelines.

Seriously????????? Deserves to be sued?????? Wow! Year after year, I just feel like I have less and less in common with other people in my country.

 

[dmoore19]

I know that if I thought for a instant that I would be sued after risking my life like that, I would hang up my snorkel and go home.

 

[Mike]

I know that if I thought for a instant that I would be sued after risking my life like that, I would hang up my snorkel and go home.

Yep. It's a shame but its a logical response to the illogical circumstances that our society is embracing

 

[kwinter]

Seriously????????? Deserves to be sued?????? Wow! Year after year, I just feel like I have less and less in common with other people in my country.

We're not talking about Good Samaritan protection here. He was a trained public service diver. At least in the hypothetical I gave. A doctor misses something because he doesn't follow established procedure and its called malpractice. You have no problem seeing a lawsuit there. But a professional rescuer does the same thing and you get in a huff about a suit.


Please pardon any typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk