To Rescue, or not to Rescue - that is the question.

[dpbishop]

As a general rule, intoxicated people make poor rescuers. I would certainly hope that if I was unconscious on the bottom, someone would inflate my BC and get me up to the surface, and I would absolve him of any blame for damages if I came up too quickly. OTOH, I would be pissed if someone did that because they "thought" I was unconscious when I was really just staying still to observe something; especially if they ignored me when I signaled " I'm OK". Just as a drunk driver is liable for damages, a drunk rescuer should be, especially, as was the case here, there were other people present who realized that there was no immediate danger to rescue the victim from. It seems like the defendant in this case acted unilaterally based on clouded judgment.

 

[J.R.]

The problem here is that once the smoke has cleared, the victim is stuck with whatever fate bestowed upon her, and has had a chance to consult with a lawyer - she could say ANYTHING!! Who is to say that a person doesn't scream "get me out, get me out" at the scene - and later, after learning she is paralyzed, and on the advice her of lawyer, claims, "I told them to leave me alone and wait for EMS, but they wouldn't listen - it's their fault I can't walk."

Money talks, bull**** walks. Most people are going to go for the money whenever they have the chance.

Yup... and if you choose to do nothing... who sez' that a creative legal entreprenur won'd elect to argue the case that their client's injuries were exacerbated by the gross negligence to fail to respond... (...or you were intoxicated and unable to safely help and therefore were not only negligent... but culpable of 'wreckless endangerment' because you were not sober as a saint...)

Yea... I know... we're not 'bound' to assist by any law... but which, morally, is the greatest 'negligence'... to err when attempting to help... or to allow injury or death to occur due to inacton?

But then we are talking *the law* here... not morality...

 

[NudeDiver]

Nudediver, nail on head it's all about money. Twist to your scenerio MR. Chump tried to help. What if he didn't and the lawyer finds out he Mr Chump saw the victim at depth and did nothing? The Lawyer will be on him like white on rice for letting a diver die and not trying to bring them to the surface. CATCH 22

..and therein lies the rub.

Repeat after me, "I did not feel I could mount an effective rescue without putting myself in danger or making the situation worse than it already was".

 

[NeilJ]

Being Canadian, I don't have to worry about lawsuits to much. So yes, I would lend a helping hand.

 

[NudeDiver]

Being Canadian, I don't have to worry about lawsuits to much. So yes, I would lend a helping hand.

I can see the changes to the PADI rescue class now..... "Hey, Dan is hurt! Quick! Someone call a Canadian!!!"

 

[mongodives]

I'm lucky, at least I have multiple insurance policies to help if I'm ever in a similiar legal nightmare.

I just might try calling a Canadian too, can't hurt can it?

 

[Thalassamania]

People worried about this don't understand the case and the decision or perhaps are giving in to some need to make a particular political statement. I had no problem bending every effort to help anyone I come across who is in trouble before this case, I no problem now. I really don't see that anything significant has changed.

 

[tc]

Nudediver, nail on head it's all about money.

Twist to your scenario MR. Chump tried to help

What if he didn't and the lawyer finds out he Mr Chump saw the victim at depth and did nothing? The Lawyer will be on him like white on rice for letting a diver die and not trying to bring them to the surface. CATCH 22

Actually, unless you're the victims buddy, divemaster or instructor (responsible in some way for the victim) you would not have a legal duty to act.

And while it is morally questionable to leave the victim there the absence of a duty to act makes the legal question much simpler- case dismissed.



And I would expect that if any members of the California legislature happen to notice the case there will be amendments to the legislation in the works relatively quickly to clarify the inclusion of rescuers.

 

[don Francisco]

In most (if not all) states, non-involved bystanders have no legal obligation to render aid in an emergency. That doesn't mean there might not be some degree of moral obligation, which would depend on how much risk is involved in assisting.

Most states try to avoid discouraging good samaritans with laws which protect good faith rescuers. Some are broader than others, but there is always the danger of lawyers trying to collect damages based on various interpretations of the langauge of the statures, as in this California case.

As a practical matter, I think that the decision to aid or not is more a matter of reflex than of carefull consideration of the leagl implications. In the diving world, potential rescuers should be more concerned with the immediate situation and potential physical risks to themselves, which are probably vastly greater than the after-the-fact legal risks.

 

[seaducer]

Consent fellas. That is the magic word.

Hello, I am so and so, I have some first aid training and EMS is on the way. May I help you? No? Ok, I'll be over here if you change your mind...