Car AccidentsĬar accidents are another good example to help distinguish between ordinary and gross negligence. On top of the court, a court would probably order him to pay punitive damages as well as a form of punishment for his behavior. In this case, not only would a court order the person to pay for the damage he caused, but the amount ordered would be, in all likelihood, higher. He knows the odds are good that he could hit and injure someone, and yet he drove at a speed grossly over the speed limit anyway. For instance, someone driving down a busy Manhattan road going 90 mph is engaging in gross negligence. Gross negligence refers to deliberate and reckless behavior that puts another’s safety or property at risk. He may have to pay for damages, including medical treatment and pain and suffering, to cover the person’s injury. The janitor did not mean to cause anyone harm, but his actions (or, rather, inaction) lead to another person’s injury and so is legally responsible for that injury. Ordinary negligence typically refers to a mistake or an accident that results in a person receiving an injury.įor instance, if a janitor forgets to put up a “Caution: Wet Floor” sign when he’s done mopping, and someone slips and falls, this is an example of ordinary negligence. Negligence is a person’s failure to use the same level of care and caution that another reasonable person in a similar situation would use.
There is actually a difference between ordinary negligence and gross negligence, though many people believe they are one and the same. This is due to the grey area that surrounds whether they are, in fact, Good Samaritans because they do not receive compensation or reward for their services. Some states have specific laws in place to cover those individuals, like paramedics, who work as volunteers. This is one reason why doctors and other medical professionals do not receive protection under the Good Samaritan Law because they earn a paycheck (compensation or reward) for the services they provide. If he saves someone with the intention of receiving a reward afterwards, then he saved the person, not out of the kindness of his heart, but instead for some sort of personal gain.
The only way a person receives protection under the Good Samaritan Law is if he acts without any expectation of compensation or reward. Therefore, if he gives up trying to help her, and she dies as a result, he can be found legally liable for abandoning his attempt to save her. Because Tommy has already begun an attempt to save Daisy’s life, he now has a duty to act to complete his rescue. He makes his way over to her table and begins performing the Heimlich maneuver on her. Tommy is eating at a diner when he notices Daisy is choking on her food. The law does not expect a person to put himself in harm’s way in order to help another person. An equal or more qualified rescuer takes over.Ī person’s duty to remain can end, for example, if there is blood present, and the person administering aid does not have gloves to protect him from blood-borne pathogens.He recognizes that continuing to offer help is actually doing more harm than good.He calls for additional medical assistance.The duty to remain is similar to the duty to act in that, once a person starts providing aid, he cannot leave the scene until one of the following happens: The Good Samaritan law does not protect Amanda from a lawsuit. She should have known not to move the man without the proper equipment and precautions.
As a medical professional, Amanda had a duty to act, and to act in a competent way. It turns out that the man had fractured his spine, and moving him severed his spinal cord, leaving the man paralyzed. She chooses to roll the man over, then has someone help her drag him closer to the building so people can pass. Amanda is an EMT, so she stops to render aid. While on her way to the grocery store, Amanda comes upon a crowd of people gathered around a man who fell from a scaffold two stores above.
0 kommentar(er)
