The problem here is that once he entered the ambulance, the ambulance crew assumes responsibility for the patient.
1. There is no such thing as an "extreme" duty of care. The standard of care in this context is that which is considered acceptable medical treatment by reasonably prudent health care professionals under like or similar circumstances.
2. There is actually nothing in the article to indicate that he was "wacky" or that anyone was on notice about that. You just made that up. In fact, they were on notice that a drunk dude passed out in front of his neighbor's house.
3. You may have a personal opinion that it is foreseeable that drunk people will try to jump out of cars. Oddly enough, your opinion would be make a designated driver liable whenever one of their passengers decides to open the door and jump. I'm not aware of any such case, and it's probably for a number of reasons including the reason that you might just be alone in your opinion that drunkenness foreseeably leads to jumping out of moving vehicles. Does alcohol make you want to jump out of things? Certainly doesn't do that to me
4. At any rate, your personal opinion that it was foreseeable that he would jump out of a speeding ambulance does not make my personal opinion that someone who voluntarily gets so drunk that they feel like jumping out of speeding vehicles should not be entitled to recover anything on the ground that they knowingly created and accepted a risk that they would do something monumentally stupid.
5. I don't know how on Earth he managed to jump out unless they were all facing the other direction and staring at iphones. But see #4. It's like getting drunk, wrestling a bear, and then your estate sues the booze manufacturer for warning that liquor might make you stupid, then sues the owner of the land for not warning about the dangers of bear wrestling.
It'd be nice to see some restraints on our lawsuit-crazy nation. We cannot force people to embrace personal responsibility, but least we can make it harder to profit from dismissing it.
First, it's not MY "assumption of risk theory"; it's an age-old standard that used to be in the common law in every state. These days, most have shifted to comparative fault schemes when it comes to determining damages.
Second, an attorney would know that and so an attorney would understand what I'm saying, even if they don't want a return of assumption of the risk. Google "assumption of the risk" for more detail. It used to be used a little too broadly, in my opinion, but I think it's perfect for a case where a person behaves like this guy.
I simply do not think a person should be allowed to get utterly blasted, do something stupid, and then sue whomever was in the vicinity of the stupidity for failing to stop it.
All of which makes me wonder: would you be willing to vote to acquit someone of first degree murder because their defense was that they voluntarily got so drunk that they could not form the specific intent to commit murder?
So if your buddy went out and got himself a nice case of alcohol poisoning and you were driving him to the hospital and your buddy suddenly decided that were Satan and the car was driving on the "Highway to Hell" (cue AC/DC) and unbuckled himself and dove out of your car, should you bear any responsibility for his act??
I guess what I'm trying to address is whether or not the fact that these were EMT's (professionals) who were supposed to be doing a job and if part of that job is to make sure that drunkards don't swan dive out of your ambulance, then I'd say that he has a point. IMO, this falls into something similar to the "Good Samaritan" laws (a by-stander doing their best can't get sued, but a physician in the same position can be sued).
We don't agree. Hardly a reason for an epistle from you...time will tell. There will be a lawsuit. I think he'll win a settlement. Ou don't. We're debating opinion, not fact. Good luck with yours.
I should have known responding to you was going to be a waste of time.
Then keep that in mind for next time.
No, you are not pointing any such thing out because you are simply wrong. And it really isn't helping that you keep announcing that I'm wrong but not offering any explanation as to why you think that might be.
Go read about what assumption of the risk was. It would apply to people who normally owed a duty of care (here, the EMTs), and it would say that they no longer owed a duty of care because of something the plaintiff did, which something involved knowingly accepting a specific risk (here, the drunk man).
It would mean that, for example, while a theme park operator ordinarily owed patrons a duty of care, a patron who removed a safety harness as a roller coaster ride started would thereby relieve the operator of its duty of care and therefore could not sue the operator if, as a result of removing the safety harness, the patron fell out of the roller coaster.
My point was that even though the law has softened on this, I would like to see it apply as a complete bar to recovery where an individual voluntarily becomes so intoxicated that they cannot act rationally and end up doing something irrational, like jumping out of an ambulance. To put it in the terms I just used: I would like to see the law return to a state where the drunk man's actions in getting so drunk that he would jump out of the ambulance, and then actually jumping out of the ambulance, relieved the EMTs of the duty of care that they would otherwise ordinarily owe an individual.
And by speaking of the law returning to a prior state, I am quite blatantly recognizing that strict assumption of the risk is no longer the state of the law. Most have some form of comparative liability, where a jury would ask how much the drunk man's negligence contributed to the injury and how much any negligence on the part of the EMT's contributed to the injury. And as I already said the applicable standard of care would turn on what counts as reasonable accepted medical practice regarding drunk people in ambulances.
okay.. then you tell me WHEN this "assumption of risk was" applied to people that normally owed a duty to care and would say that they no longer owed a duty of care. Because in almost three decades of being involved in healthcare.. I have never seen it applied the way you state it was.
the man was in the care of medical personnel. It was DUE to his medical condition that he jumped out.
Yeah. I'd like to largely see a reversal to early-20th C civil cases on this front.
Part of an EMTs job is to keep their charge safe...even if it's from himself. An EMT is not a Good Samaritan by legal definition.
I agree with the general consensus that it is a self inflicted injury. the drunk has only himself to blame for his actions.
But on the other hand that does not make an excuse for the four emergency medical workers. In such a profession the safety of the patient must be seen as a necessity of the job both as a morality of the nature of the work as well as having a legal status as a required obligation. By allowing a drunk to exit a van that was moving instead of stopping when his intentions became clear to even open the doors of the van let alone have time to jump out.
Why did the van driver hopefully sober, quick of reaction, thought and aware of his surroundings as a driver not attempt to stop before a man so drunk and disorganised manage to exit the van?. Why instead did he continue to...." In an ambulance speeding through Staten Island,"
His first duty should be to the safety of the patient in the van not the time it takes him to deliver another person to a hospital. The other three are also culpable as they should have had quicker reaction times than a man so drunk he would walk out of a moving van. Even if they failed to do anything to physically restrain him they could have warned the driver to stop.
There is a divider between the drivers compartment and the back.
I wouldn't think the driver even knew what was happening and even if he did, I doubt he could have reacted in time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?