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

[Jetfire]

Admittedly, I haven't read the article, but it seems to me from reading the thread (I know, I know, third hand information), if the rescue had shifted to recovery/salvage mode without any check of the flipped vehicle, then he might have a leg to stand on.

On the other hand, if they were still handling victims and actively trying to figure out how to check the 3rd vehicle, then he's SOL. Proving either case will probably be difficult, and the case may be tossed just to try not to chill emergency responders responses, but there might be something to be decided regardless.

[s_stabeler]

The biggest problem with the lawsuit is it suggests that if first responders screw up, no matter the reason, they are legally liable. They made, on the information they had, the determination that the 3rd vehicle likely contained a corpse. Understandably, they were more interested in dealing with the two vehicles where the person was likely alive.

To give a similar example, what if it was an avalanche, and the victims were on foot? you find two people who are clearly alive. You can either rescue them, or look for a third person you know to have been in the area. What is the appropiate response? To rescue them. THEN search for the third person.

[Gravekeeper]

You can't always tell how deep the water is or how fast it is moving by looking at the surface.

I'm not looking at the surface. I'm looking at the two rescuers standing up fairly easily under their own power in knee deep water.

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).

Knee deep water. Also, again, the rescuer was able to reach under water and open the door through the window. Without putting his head under. It didn't even come up to his shoulder.

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

It was safe enough for one of them to stand up on top of the flipped 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.

Both rescuers went right by his vehicle initially.

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.

These guys ARE the firefighters in this situation. There is no one else coming to secure the scene before they go in.

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.

Two rescuers standing in knee deep water pulled him out of the car and directly onto the shore. You can yell at me all you want while envision whatever nightmare scenario it is in your head. But all of this was on live TV, its not a debate. You can see the depth, current and ease of which they were able to recover his vehicle. Then the ease in which they were able to rescue him, even after he went under again.

No divers, oxygen tanks or any such thing was required. Just one dude to reach under water and pull the door handle.

It DOES NOT MATTER! Checking the vehicle would have involved moving the vehicle or getting into the water, both of which are risky.

They're already IN the water. They had been in the water for over an hour. One of them just hopped up on top of the car and threw the toe cable around a wheel. Thats when he heard someone inside screaming and yelling.

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.

The flipped vehicle was the fastest, easiest and least dangerous to the safety of the first responders. Rescuing the guy in the truck took much much longer and required them to wade out into the middle of current itself. Whereas the car was being sheltered by the chunk of road behind it and was close to shore.

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.

The problem is the scene you're painting is different from the one we actually have here. As for negligence, again, it would come down to the State's specifics laws and rescue protocols and whether or not they were followed here in regards to signs of life. But seeing as neither of us are aware of what the laws and protocols are in this State, or what the rescuers reports said and if they followed them precisely, we can't make an absolute judgement.

Is it unlikely? Yes. But both the guy and his lawyer have stressed that the first responders are a small part of the lawsuit and that its mainly aimed at the county. But like I said before, that's just not as much of a rage bait snappy headline as man sues rescuers.

Its not like this is a vindictive or frivolous greed driven lawsuit. The guy's 40k in the hole with medical bills and likely has more coming in. This is reluctant desperation to try and avoid bankruptcy.

In a way this is the health care system's fault. ;p

[Gravekeeper]

The biggest problem with the lawsuit is it suggests that if first responders screw up, no matter the reason, they are legally liable. They made, on the information they had, the determination that the 3rd vehicle likely contained a corpse. Understandably, they were more interested in dealing with the two vehicles where the person was likely alive.

Actually, first responders can be legally liable for neglience. Good Samaritan laws do not protect them while they're on the job, where they are under a Duty to Act. Off the clock, if they helped someone they would be protected by said laws. So again it will come down to what the actual state laws on the matter are if any negligence is found.

To give a similar example, what if it was an avalanche, and the victims were on foot? you find two people who are clearly alive. You can either rescue them, or look for a third person you know to have been in the area. What is the appropiate response? To rescue them. THEN search for the third person.

To make that more accurate you need two people clearly alive, and one pair of feet sticking up from the snow, while the brother and wife of those feet beg you for 2 hours to at least walk over and see if they're moving. Only to discover they're moving after you go to pick them up at the end of the day just to get them out of the way.