Man is going to sue first responders who saved his life.

[Titi]

http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-man-co...opstories.html

[Gravekeeper]

That's really a sensationalized click bait headline isn't it? It makes it sound like he's upset with having his life saved in a manner not to his liking. When in fact he's upset because apparently they didn't even notice or check that he was trapped in the car to begin with.

Which is a pretty big cock up as far as being a first responder goes.

[Greenday]

That's really a sensationalized click bait headline isn't it? It makes it sound like he's upset with having his life saved in a manner not to his liking. When in fact he's upset because apparently they didn't even notice or check that he was trapped in the car to begin with.

Which is a pretty big cock up as far as being a first responder goes.

It was already submerged by the time first responders got to it. Unless the water was crystal clear, which I doubt it was due to dirt and such, there's no way they could have just seen someone was in it.

[Duelist925]

It was already submerged by the time first responders got to it. Unless the water was crystal clear, which I doubt it was due to dirt and such, there's no way they could have just seen someone was in it.

And? A car doesn't just drive itself into a creek. Basic logic dictates that it got there somehow, and the most likely way how is someone drove it.

Its possible that it got there in other ways, but none of them are as likely as the first.

And even then, you don't assume that the car got there another way--you check and make sure no ones there before you take your sweet time.

[s_stabeler]

It was already submerged by the time first responders got to it. Unless the water was crystal clear, which I doubt it was due to dirt and such, there's no way they could have just seen someone was in it.

depends on how deep the creek was- and I doubt it was more that barely covered, since creeks are small-to-medium sized streams, and I would think that any stream that can have a car that far underwater would actually be a river-

It IS mean-spirited to sue the first-responders as well, though. Sue whoever didn't close the road, by all means- but don't sue the first responders.

[Gravekeeper]

His car was not completely submerged, but it was upside down.

The first responders are on record from the original news story basically saying they figured he was dead so they attended to the other two vehicles first. It wasn't until they basically went to check his car for a corpse that they heard him screaming and pounding inside. So none of the rescuers went near the vehicle to check for a survivor when they arrived on scene.

[bainsidhe]

I can't imagine how terrifying this was, but I'd really like to hear the side of the first responders. That water is moving fast and I doubt it was safe for responders to enter the water and attend to all three vehicles at once. Safety and expectation of survivors would affect how the rescue effort was handled. It's terrible this happened, but why not blame mother nature for washing out the road? Or perhaps himself for driving when flooding was going on, since he's so ready to blame the county for having open roads during flooding.

I imagine the county will settle just to put an end to it.

[Sleepwalker]

Sounds like triage to me.

[s_stabeler]

if they believed his to be dead, then yeah, they were right to ignore his car. triage- you help the people in the worst condition that are savable ( in other words, if nothing you can do can save somebody, concentrate on those you can save. Yes, it is cold. The idea is to save as many people as possible.

[Gravekeeper]

That level of triage is reserved for mass casualty events and triage involves actually accessing each victim before sorting priority. You really shouldn't just show up on scene, look around and go "Welp, no way anyone survived that" and move on without actually checking.

And that's that big problem with this scenario. Rescue priority would demand you check the flipped car first because the occupants of that vehicle are in the most immediate danger. As you have no idea how long it has been since that vehicle flipped, not prioritizing that vehicle could directly lead to deaths.

The other two victims were stuck in their trucks but visible and stable.

It would be different if they had checked his car and failed to find him because he was already drowned and bobbing against the floor of his vehicle. But he was screaming and pounding the entire time. Which the rescuers clearly heard when they actually approached the vehicle.


Also, in fairness, having seen the guy and his lawyer interviewed a few times now, they are mainly suing the county. The first responders are brought into it due to possible negligence. But the main beef is with the county. His lawyer made the rather astute observation that the headlines flying around are just the part the media grabbed and ran with because they sound the most sensational.

Ungrateful man sues people who saved his life sounds so much better than man sues because city failed to put up sign and first responders may have been negligent.

[Panacea]

Here's what the man in question has to prove.

He has to prove that the standard of professional behavior would have been to check the car first before lifting it out of the water.

That won't happen. To check the car still in the water they would have had to get a professional diver in the water. Getting the right person, properly trained, doesn't happen quickly. He likely would have died before a diver could have gotten into the water.

He certainly can't expect the first responders there to get into the water. First rule of rescue is you don't subject yourself to unnecessary risks. Make sure the scene is safe.

I don't think the rescuers will remain on the lawsuit. That part of the case will get dropped. The issue with closing the roads is a horse of another color; that could proceed. Or not.

[Gravekeeper]

That won't happen. To check the car still in the water they would have had to get a professional diver in the water. Getting the right person, properly trained, doesn't happen quickly. He likely would have died before a diver could have gotten into the water.

He was not rescued by divers. Two rescuers ( Standing up under their own power in the current, with life vests and a safety line/inflatable with them just in case ) simply threw a tow cable loop around the car's tires and they pulled it over with a truck and got him out the window. After they heard him screaming and pounding from inside the vehicle. The water is only 4ish feet deep or so. It was the current trapping people not the depth. Divers would have been useless regardless.

It took all of 15 seconds to right the car and get the guy some air and about 3 minutes to get him to safety because they had to smash the window and gave him a life vest to put on. The car actually flipped back over trapping him under water again and the rescuer, while standing up, was able to reach through the window underwater and pull the door open and get him out. If you look at the picture I linked, you can actually see the rescuer in question reaching under to open the door.

So like I was saying, with 3 vehicles in the water, 2 victims were visible and safe just trapped in their vehicles by the current. They were stable and in no immediate danger. The flipped car should have been the first vehicle checked given the ease with which he was rescued after they actually checked his car and noticed him.

[Panacea]

So like I was saying, with 3 vehicles in the water, 2 victims were visible and safe just trapped in their vehicles by the current. They were stable and in no immediate danger. The flipped car should have been the first vehicle checked given the ease with which he was rescued after they actually checked his car and noticed him.

No. Sorry. The two visible victims were very much in danger. Cars in that situation are greatly in danger. Currents can be unpredictable and stronger than anticipated; that's why it is so dangerous to drive into water on the roads in bad weather.

I'm not going to question the actions of the first responders. The first rule of rescue is safety first. It is safer to rescue the visible victims or to remove the flipped car than to try and flip a car to check first.

[Gravekeeper]

No. Sorry. The two visible victims were very much in danger. Cars in that situation are greatly in danger. Currents can be unpredictable and stronger than anticipated; that's why it is so dangerous to drive into water on the roads in bad weather.

They were both in heavy trucks.

The rescuers failed to ascertain he was in the vehicle. They only noticed when they went to salvage the vehicle. That was when they heard him. His wife and brother were on the shore begging them to check his vehicle. The first responders admitted in their reports that they did not realize he was in the vehicle. They were told by a trucker that he was dead and I guess took his word for it or otherwise failed to heard him screaming and pounding in there.

This is my point. Its not a matter of they looked at the scene, saw 3 victims and began triage. They looked at the scene and failed to realize there were 3 victims and only found the third still alive through sheer dumb luck when they actually went over to his car.

Thats where it can potentially become negligence from a legal standpoint. Now, I am not saying the first responders are wrong here or that this guy is right, I'm just saying that's the potential legal problem with this. Its going to come down to the State's first responder protocol ( and whether or not it was followed ) and its duty to act / signs of life laws as to whether or not this will have any traction legally.

I'm not going to question the actions of the first responders. The first rule of rescue is safety first. It is safer to rescue the visible victims or to remove the flipped car than to try and flip a car to check first.

Actually it was safer to check the flipped car to be honest. It was the most accessible and easiest to deal with. Again, two rescuers were able to wade over to it, one jumped on top of the car to loop over the tow cable and that's when he heard the screaming. From there his rescue took less than 4 minutes. 2 of which were him floundering to get the life vest through hypothermia. They were able to pull him out of the window and directly onto the shore.

Conversely they had to go out into the middle of the current to get the man out of the truck.

[Panacea]

They were both in heavy trucks.

It does not matter what kind of trucks they were in. Even every heavy vehicles can be swept away by very shallow water that moves very swiftly. You can't always tell how deep the water is or how fast it is moving by looking at the surface.

The rescuers failed to ascertain he was in the vehicle.

They didn't have an obligation to ascertain anything before moving the vehicle. The first rule of rescue is scene safety. Trying to see if anyone was in the vehicle would have been too dangerous without the right equipment, which would include an oxygen regulator . . . which we know they didn't have (no divers on scene).

They only noticed when they went to salvage the vehicle. That was when they heard him. His wife and brother were on the shore begging them to check his vehicle. The first responders admitted in their reports that they did not realize he was in the vehicle. They were told by a trucker that he was dead and I guess took his word for it or otherwise failed to heard him screaming and pounding in there.

None of this matters. It does not trump scene safety.

This is my point. Its not a matter of they looked at the scene, saw 3 victims and began triage. They looked at the scene and failed to realize there were 3 victims and only found the third still alive through sheer dumb luck when they actually went over to his car.

They were not able to evaluate the flipped vehicle safety, therefore it is unfortunate but not negligence that they did not realize the man was still alive in the care.

Thats where it can potentially become negligence from a legal standpoint. Now, I am not saying the first responders are wrong here or that this guy is right, I'm just saying that's the potential legal problem with this. Its going to come down to the State's first responder protocol ( and whether or not it was followed ) and its duty to act / signs of life laws as to whether or not this will have any traction legally.

To win a legal case of this kind you have to have three elements: duty to the victim, breech of duty to the victim, and a violation of the standards of care to be delivered at the time (negligence of some kind).

Responders, even ones who are government employees, are not required . . . that is have no duty . . . to risk their lives unnecessarily. There is no duty to ignore scene safety.

For example, if paramedics were the first on scene at a house fire, heard victims in the house screaming, their duty would be TO WAIT for the firefighters to arrive and do what they do before attempting to rescue the victims.

Actually it was safer to check the flipped car to be honest.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKING NO!

You have NO idea what you are talking about here. You canNOT tell how deep or fast water is moving in a situation like this just by looking at it. Safety approaching and dealing with a vehicle in this kind of situation is one of the MOST DANGEROUS THINGS rescuers get involved in. People DIE every year trying to rescue vehicles trapped by water.

It was the most accessible and easiest to deal with. Again, two rescuers were able to wade over to it, one jumped on top of the car to loop over the tow cable and that's when he heard the screaming.

It DOES NOT MATTER! Checking the vehicle would have involved moving the vehicle or getting into the water, both of which are risky. It creates unnecessary risks for the two people they KNOW to be alive. By screwing around with the flipped vehicle, which more likely than not had a corpse in it, they risked the victims in the other vehicle being lost when conditions in the water changed.

That things turned out the way they did does not in any way mean the rescuers were negligent or made a mistake in setting their rescue priorities. Based on the rules of scene safety, they made the right call.

This lawsuit will fail.