Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:45 pm
Tortfeasor: one who commits wrong; a wrongdoer.
It is for this fear, that the good samaritan laws were enacted. The good samaritan doctrine as it is legally known, is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing.' Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment. Therefore, this doctrine was primarily developed for first aid encounters and every state does have its own adaptation of it. However, the crucial points are about the same.
...
First of all, a person is not obligated by law to do first aid in most states, not unless it's part of a job description obviously. Some states will consider it an act of negligence though, if we don't at least call for help.
The person rendering aid needs to use some sense, and the laws don't preclude filing or winning a suit. Information directly related to specific occupations and specific states is also available. Some people will sue for anything; in worst-case scenarios, their particular survivors are just as apt to attempt a suit if the witness(es) did not attempt to render aid.
So, a reasonable person learns a reasonable amount of first-aid (what he or she would hope to receive if the situation were reversed), hopes it will never be needed, and hopes for the best if it is. On the other hand, not passing by on the other side, but rendering aid to someone outside one's comfort zone, without calculating the return, is kind of what being a good Samaritan was all about in the first place, as I recall.
-gailr
It is for this fear, that the good samaritan laws were enacted. The good samaritan doctrine as it is legally known, is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing.' Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment. Therefore, this doctrine was primarily developed for first aid encounters and every state does have its own adaptation of it. However, the crucial points are about the same.
...
First of all, a person is not obligated by law to do first aid in most states, not unless it's part of a job description obviously. Some states will consider it an act of negligence though, if we don't at least call for help.
The person rendering aid needs to use some sense, and the laws don't preclude filing or winning a suit. Information directly related to specific occupations and specific states is also available. Some people will sue for anything; in worst-case scenarios, their particular survivors are just as apt to attempt a suit if the witness(es) did not attempt to render aid.
So, a reasonable person learns a reasonable amount of first-aid (what he or she would hope to receive if the situation were reversed), hopes it will never be needed, and hopes for the best if it is. On the other hand, not passing by on the other side, but rendering aid to someone outside one's comfort zone, without calculating the return, is kind of what being a good Samaritan was all about in the first place, as I recall.
-gailr