I miss "assumption of the risk"

In an ambulance speeding through Staten Island, a patient began tending to his own needs. He unbuckled the straps of the gurney on which he lay, and opened the doors of the moving vehicle. The patient, Yaugeni Kralkin, then jumped out, tumbling onto the asphalt and falling unconscious. On Friday, Mr. Kralkin, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court on Staten Island against the city, the Fire Department and the four emergency medical workers who were administering to him that night last June.


Mr. Kralkin has accused the workers of failing in their duties, saying they did not stop him from exiting the ambulance and are thus responsible for the injuries he sustained hitting the pavement on Richmond Avenue. The seemingly strange assignation of blame hinges on one point: Mr. Kralkin was incredibly drunk, with a blood-alcohol level so high he was unaware of his actions, he says, even as he unbuckled straps and ultimately dived from the vehicle, according to his lawyer. The emergency medical workers failed in their duty to protect him, the lawsuit contends, even from himself, in his inebriated state — attributed to a bottle of cognac.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/nyregion/ambulance-jumper-lawsuit.html




Eat pavement, imo.

Now, as to the overall point, different states treat situations in which an individual does things that contribute to a result they later claim is up to the negligence of another differently. I'm not getting into that. What I intend to say is that I'm not sure I even want to see this suit go beyond the motion to dismiss state.

I tend to think that while I fully support things like drug decriminalization (or legalization, depending on the drug), that comes with a price: you put something yourself, you assume complete responsibility for anything you might try to later claim was a result of what you ingested.*

Shoot what you think is heroin and die? Not the dealer's fault. Your fault. You stuck a needle in your arm. I still pity you. I want help to be available. But at some point, you decided that occasionally snorting a bit of whatever just wasn't doing it, and you needed to fly. So you stuck a needle in your arm. Then another and another and another. Say what you want about genetics, but that really is just YOUR fault.

Get stoned and eat two pizzas? Sleep it off, you silly cow.

Take too much acid, flip out, and smash up a store whilst naked? Don't take so much acid if you can't hold your ****.

Get drunk and jump out of an ambulance? Maybe you should not have guzzled a fifth of hard liquor. Maybe every last thing that occurred is the precise and direct result of your inability to control yourself.

*Ok, we might postulate some caveats for people who are, say, mentally retarded and break into someone's liquor cabinet or whatever. Not talking about that.






Know yourself. Act accordingly.

Mr Person said:

In an ambulance speeding through Staten Island, a patient began tending to his own needs. He unbuckled the straps of the gurney on which he lay, and opened the doors of the moving vehicle. The patient, Yaugeni Kralkin, then jumped out, tumbling onto the asphalt and falling unconscious. On Friday, Mr. Kralkin, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court on Staten Island against the city, the Fire Department and the four emergency medical workers who were administering to him that night last June.


Mr. Kralkin has accused the workers of failing in their duties, saying they did not stop him from exiting the ambulance and are thus responsible for the injuries he sustained hitting the pavement on Richmond Avenue. The seemingly strange assignation of blame hinges on one point: Mr. Kralkin was incredibly drunk, with a blood-alcohol level so high he was unaware of his actions, he says, even as he unbuckled straps and ultimately dived from the vehicle, according to his lawyer. The emergency medical workers failed in their duty to protect him, the lawsuit contends, even from himself, in his inebriated state — attributed to a bottle of cognac.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/nyregion/ambulance-jumper-lawsuit.html




Eat pavement, imo.

Now, as to the overall point, different states treat situations in which an individual does things that contribute to a result they later claim is up to the negligence of another differently. I'm not getting into that. What I intend to say is that I'm not sure I even want to see this suit go beyond the motion to dismiss state.

I tend to think that while I fully support things like drug decriminalization (or legalization, depending on the drug), that comes with a price: you put something yourself, you assume complete responsibility for anything you might try to later claim was a result of what you ingested.*

Shoot what you think is heroin and die? Not the dealer's fault. Your fault. You stuck a needle in your arm. I still pity you. I want help to be available. But at some point, you decided that occasionally snorting a bit of whatever just wasn't doing it, and you needed to fly. So you stuck a needle in your arm. Then another and another and another. Say what you want about genetics, but that really is just YOUR fault.

Get stoned and eat two pizzas? Sleep it off, you silly cow.

Take too much acid, flip out, and smash up a store whilst naked? Don't take so much acid if you can't hold your ****.

Get drunk and jump out of an ambulance? Maybe you should not have guzzled a fifth of hard liquor. Maybe every last thing that occurred is the precise and direct result of your inability to control yourself.

*Ok, we might postulate some caveats for people who are, say, mentally retarded and break into someone's liquor cabinet or whatever. Not talking about that.






Know yourself. Act accordingly.

Click to expand...

This guy is lucky that the lawyer chasing the ambulance didn't run him over in the process.

Been that way for a long time, because the courts largely dont work to promote justice. I remember a case maybe 10 years ago where kids (17ish as I recall) looking to raise hell cut through a fence to gain access to a railroad right of way, walked past multiple signs warning them that they should not be there, did vandalism, but I think it was one guy got hurt seriously after being on the property for an extended time......sued and won on the grounds that the railroad has to assume that trespassers will come anyways, and thus if someone gets hurt while trespassing in such a way that could have "reasonably" been prevented then the railroad is negligent.

The thing he got hurt on has been that way for something like 100 years.

At which point I called Bull ****.

That's pretty much his fault, he can go ahead and piss off. I have no sympathy for those who do not understand the basics of physics.

this guy was a waste of good cognac

This shouldn't just be dismissed. It should be dismissed with some sort of penalty against the individual for wasting our time and money.

Hawkeye10 said:

Been that way for a long time, because the courts largely dont work to promote justice. I remember a case maybe 10 years ago where kids looking to raise hell broke through a fence to gain access to a railroad right of way, walked past multiple signs warning them that they should not be there, did vandalism, but I think it was one guy got hurt seriously after being on the property for an extended time......sued and won on the grounds that the railroad has to assume that trespassers will come anyways, and thus if someone gets hurt while trespassing in such a way that could have "reasonably" been prevented then the railroad is negligent.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I'd like to largely see a reversal to early-20th C civil cases on this front.

I do not think everything needs to be rolled back, but I've always been rather annoyed at the lack of personal responsibility from the equation. Especially when it's is so painfully obvious that the person brought the harm on themselves.


Now some jurisdictions actually ask the jury to apportion blame on a percentage basis. Maybe that makes sense. After all, DP posters sit on juries and can make a decision after sitting through trial. But on the other hand, it rubs me the wrong way that this can be allowed to cost a civil defendant X tens of thousands of dollars, no matter how ridiculous.

On the other hand, requiring losing plaintiffs to payback everything the defense spends would be a massive chill on filing suits. And before one cheers, one should consider that that could virtually wipe out suits against corporations, for the obvious reason that a great corporate strategy in those circumstances would be spending up a storm on defending every case.

There are many possible attempts at solutions between these scenarios, but fortunately for me, I have to go grill a real treat: some seriously great dry-aged ribeye streaks.

Chaddelamancha said:

This shouldn't just be dismissed. It should be dismissed with some sort of penalty against the individual for wasting our time and money.

Click to expand...

Oh, and under Rule 11, the court can penalize the lawyer too. At least, if it's a federal suit. I didn't bother to check. Fairly certain that just about every state has something like R11, though.

I agree with the OP. But what if the guy wasn't drunk. What if he was in some sort of fugue state and walked out of the moving ambulance? Should the crew be liable in that case?

Mr Person said:

In an ambulance speeding through Staten Island, a patient began tending to his own needs. He unbuckled the straps of the gurney on which he lay, and opened the doors of the moving vehicle. The patient, Yaugeni Kralkin, then jumped out, tumbling onto the asphalt and falling unconscious. On Friday, Mr. Kralkin, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court on Staten Island against the city, the Fire Department and the four emergency medical workers who were administering to him that night last June.


Mr. Kralkin has accused the workers of failing in their duties, saying they did not stop him from exiting the ambulance and are thus responsible for the injuries he sustained hitting the pavement on Richmond Avenue. The seemingly strange assignation of blame hinges on one point: Mr. Kralkin was incredibly drunk, with a blood-alcohol level so high he was unaware of his actions, he says, even as he unbuckled straps and ultimately dived from the vehicle, according to his lawyer. The emergency medical workers failed in their duty to protect him, the lawsuit contends, even from himself, in his inebriated state — attributed to a bottle of cognac.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/nyregion/ambulance-jumper-lawsuit.html




Eat pavement, imo.

Now, as to the overall point, different states treat situations in which an individual does things that contribute to a result they later claim is up to the negligence of another differently. I'm not getting into that. What I intend to say is that I'm not sure I even want to see this suit go beyond the motion to dismiss state.

I tend to think that while I fully support things like drug decriminalization (or legalization, depending on the drug), that comes with a price: you put something yourself, you assume complete responsibility for anything you might try to later claim was a result of what you ingested.*

Shoot what you think is heroin and die? Not the dealer's fault. Your fault. You stuck a needle in your arm. I still pity you. I want help to be available. But at some point, you decided that occasionally snorting a bit of whatever just wasn't doing it, and you needed to fly. So you stuck a needle in your arm. Then another and another and another. Say what you want about genetics, but that really is just YOUR fault.

Get stoned and eat two pizzas? Sleep it off, you silly cow.

Take too much acid, flip out, and smash up a store whilst naked? Don't take so much acid if you can't hold your ****.

Get drunk and jump out of an ambulance? Maybe you should not have guzzled a fifth of hard liquor. Maybe every last thing that occurred is the precise and direct result of your inability to control yourself.

*Ok, we might postulate some caveats for people who are, say, mentally retarded and break into someone's liquor cabinet or whatever. Not talking about that.






Know yourself. Act accordingly.

Click to expand...

Now, if we can just get Wall Street, the "job creator"/donor class and the substantial people to take on the same responsibilities we expect the little people to.

Police officers ride along with EMT's when a criminal or dangerous person needs to be driven to the hospital. Maybe that's the answer, put a police escort in every ambulance taking a drunk person to the hospital. :shrug:

I think Yaugeni's lawsuit is going to be tossed, and he'll be back to stage diving into concrete sooner or later.

Mr Person said:

Know yourself. Act accordingly.

Click to expand...

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.

Mr Person said:

In an ambulance speeding through Staten Island, a patient began tending to his own needs. He unbuckled the straps of the gurney on which he lay, and opened the doors of the moving vehicle. The patient, Yaugeni Kralkin, then jumped out, tumbling onto the asphalt and falling unconscious. On Friday, Mr. Kralkin, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court on Staten Island against the city, the Fire Department and the four emergency medical workers who were administering to him that night last June.


Mr. Kralkin has accused the workers of failing in their duties, saying they did not stop him from exiting the ambulance and are thus responsible for the injuries he sustained hitting the pavement on Richmond Avenue. The seemingly strange assignation of blame hinges on one point: Mr. Kralkin was incredibly drunk, with a blood-alcohol level so high he was unaware of his actions, he says, even as he unbuckled straps and ultimately dived from the vehicle, according to his lawyer. The emergency medical workers failed in their duty to protect him, the lawsuit contends, even from himself, in his inebriated state — attributed to a bottle of cognac.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/nyregion/ambulance-jumper-lawsuit.html




Eat pavement, imo.

Now, as to the overall point, different states treat situations in which an individual does things that contribute to a result they later claim is up to the negligence of another differently. I'm not getting into that. What I intend to say is that I'm not sure I even want to see this suit go beyond the motion to dismiss state.

I tend to think that while I fully support things like drug decriminalization (or legalization, depending on the drug), that comes with a price: you put something yourself, you assume complete responsibility for anything you might try to later claim was a result of what you ingested.*

Shoot what you think is heroin and die? Not the dealer's fault. Your fault. You stuck a needle in your arm. I still pity you. I want help to be available. But at some point, you decided that occasionally snorting a bit of whatever just wasn't doing it, and you needed to fly. So you stuck a needle in your arm. Then another and another and another. Say what you want about genetics, but that really is just YOUR fault.

Get stoned and eat two pizzas? Sleep it off, you silly cow.

Take too much acid, flip out, and smash up a store whilst naked? Don't take so much acid if you can't hold your ****.

Get drunk and jump out of an ambulance? Maybe you should not have guzzled a fifth of hard liquor. Maybe every last thing that occurred is the precise and direct result of your inability to control yourself.

*Ok, we might postulate some caveats for people who are, say, mentally retarded and break into someone's liquor cabinet or whatever. Not talking about that.






Know yourself. Act accordingly.

Click to expand...

Excellent write-up. I'm pretty much right in line with your thoughts here. Don't abandon them medically if they need help, but as far as liability afterward, hell no.

Skeptic Bob said:

I agree with the OP. But what if the guy wasn't drunk. What if he was in some sort of fugue state and walked out of the moving ambulance? Should the crew be liable in that case?

Click to expand...

To me, it wouldn't matter if he were stone cold sober and lucid. Maybe he legitimately feared some persecution or whatever and needed to escape*. He still made a dangerous choice on his own. That's the key primary aspect here... negligence of others vs one's own choice.

*-I cannot think of what that might be, but throwing it in for context.

Skeptic Bob said:

I agree with the OP. But what if the guy wasn't drunk. What if he was in some sort of fugue state and walked out of the moving ambulance? Should the crew be liable in that case?

Click to expand...

Well, assumption of the risk wouldn't be in play in that case, so perhaps. As it stands, that would depend on what is considered acceptable medical practice.

Mr Person said:

In an ambulance speeding through Staten Island, a patient began tending to his own needs. He unbuckled the straps of the gurney on which he lay, and opened the doors of the moving vehicle. The patient, Yaugeni Kralkin, then jumped out, tumbling onto the asphalt and falling unconscious. On Friday, Mr. Kralkin, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court on Staten Island against the city, the Fire Department and the four emergency medical workers who were administering to him that night last June.


Mr. Kralkin has accused the workers of failing in their duties, saying they did not stop him from exiting the ambulance and are thus responsible for the injuries he sustained hitting the pavement on Richmond Avenue. The seemingly strange assignation of blame hinges on one point: Mr. Kralkin was incredibly drunk, with a blood-alcohol level so high he was unaware of his actions, he says, even as he unbuckled straps and ultimately dived from the vehicle, according to his lawyer. The emergency medical workers failed in their duty to protect him, the lawsuit contends, even from himself, in his inebriated state — attributed to a bottle of cognac.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/nyregion/ambulance-jumper-lawsuit.html




Eat pavement, imo.

Now, as to the overall point, different states treat situations in which an individual does things that contribute to a result they later claim is up to the negligence of another differently. I'm not getting into that. What I intend to say is that I'm not sure I even want to see this suit go beyond the motion to dismiss state.

I tend to think that while I fully support things like drug decriminalization (or legalization, depending on the drug), that comes with a price: you put something yourself, you assume complete responsibility for anything you might try to later claim was a result of what you ingested.*

Shoot what you think is heroin and die? Not the dealer's fault. Your fault. You stuck a needle in your arm. I still pity you. I want help to be available. But at some point, you decided that occasionally snorting a bit of whatever just wasn't doing it, and you needed to fly. So you stuck a needle in your arm. Then another and another and another. Say what you want about genetics, but that really is just YOUR fault.

Get stoned and eat two pizzas? Sleep it off, you silly cow.

Take too much acid, flip out, and smash up a store whilst naked? Don't take so much acid if you can't hold your ****.

Get drunk and jump out of an ambulance? Maybe you should not have guzzled a fifth of hard liquor. Maybe every last thing that occurred is the precise and direct result of your inability to control yourself.

*Ok, we might postulate some caveats for people who are, say, mentally retarded and break into someone's liquor cabinet or whatever. Not talking about that.






Know yourself. Act accordingly.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with you. When the paramedics took responsibility for his life by loading him into the ambulance and tending to him, they were required by law to use extreme care. They did not. In his drunken state, the paramedics were on notice that he was whacky. What he did was a foreseeable consequence. Where were they that he could unbuckle himself and throw himself out the door? I'm not even sure I quite believe that.

Mr Person said:

In an ambulance speeding through Staten Island, a patient began tending to his own needs. He unbuckled the straps of the gurney on which he lay, and opened the doors of the moving vehicle. The patient, Yaugeni Kralkin, then jumped out, tumbling onto the asphalt and falling unconscious. On Friday, Mr. Kralkin, 56, filed suit in State Supreme Court on Staten Island against the city, the Fire Department and the four emergency medical workers who were administering to him that night last June.


Mr. Kralkin has accused the workers of failing in their duties, saying they did not stop him from exiting the ambulance and are thus responsible for the injuries he sustained hitting the pavement on Richmond Avenue. The seemingly strange assignation of blame hinges on one point: Mr. Kralkin was incredibly drunk, with a blood-alcohol level so high he was unaware of his actions, he says, even as he unbuckled straps and ultimately dived from the vehicle, according to his lawyer. The emergency medical workers failed in their duty to protect him, the lawsuit contends, even from himself, in his inebriated state — attributed to a bottle of cognac.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/nyregion/ambulance-jumper-lawsuit.html




Eat pavement, imo.

Now, as to the overall point, different states treat situations in which an individual does things that contribute to a result they later claim is up to the negligence of another differently. I'm not getting into that. What I intend to say is that I'm not sure I even want to see this suit go beyond the motion to dismiss state.

I tend to think that while I fully support things like drug decriminalization (or legalization, depending on the drug), that comes with a price: you put something yourself, you assume complete responsibility for anything you might try to later claim was a result of what you ingested.*

Shoot what you think is heroin and die? Not the dealer's fault. Your fault. You stuck a needle in your arm. I still pity you. I want help to be available. But at some point, you decided that occasionally snorting a bit of whatever just wasn't doing it, and you needed to fly. So you stuck a needle in your arm. Then another and another and another. Say what you want about genetics, but that really is just YOUR fault.

Get stoned and eat two pizzas? Sleep it off, you silly cow.

Take too much acid, flip out, and smash up a store whilst naked? Don't take so much acid if you can't hold your ****.

Get drunk and jump out of an ambulance? Maybe you should not have guzzled a fifth of hard liquor. Maybe every last thing that occurred is the precise and direct result of your inability to control yourself.

*Ok, we might postulate some caveats for people who are, say, mentally retarded and break into someone's liquor cabinet or whatever. Not talking about that.






Know yourself. Act accordingly.

Click to expand...

With your "assumption of risk" theory, I think an attorney might tell you that even a drunk is entitled to be safely transported to the hospital.

The problem here is that once he entered the ambulance, the ambulance crew assumes responsibility for the patient. In this case the fellow. So it begs the question HOW he was able to unbuckle,, and then jump out of the moving van with 3 EMT's present.

MaggieD said:

I don't agree with you. When the paramedics took responsibility for his life by loading him into the ambulance and tending to him, they were required by law to use extreme care. They did not. In his drunken state, the paramedics were on notice that he was whacky. What he did was a foreseeable consequence. Where were they that he could unbuckle himself and throw himself out the door? I'm not even sure I quite believe that.

Click to expand...

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.

MaggieD said:

With your "assumption of risk" theory, I think an attorney might tell you that even a drunk is entitled to be safely transported to the hospital.

Click to expand...

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?

jaeger19 said:

The problem here is that once he entered the ambulance, the ambulance crew assumes responsibility for the patient. In this case the fellow. So it begs the question HOW he was able to unbuckle,, and then jump out of the moving van with 3 EMT's present.

Click to expand...

That's not a problem if one understands what "assumption of the risk" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk

It would mean that even if the EMTs were negligent in whatever they did that allowed him to break out of a speeding ambulance, the plaintiff could not recover because he assumed the risk that he would do something like that by voluntarily downing a fifth of hard liquor.

I'm sure there are a number of people who don't agree, but I rather hate the idea that he can recover anything. It's not like he was suffering from mental illness, from something he didn't inflict on himself.




It would be a different case if we were talking about an adult party at which a five year old guzzled a bottle of booze someone left lying around. The kid cannot voluntarily assume a risk because the kid won't even know what the stuff does. This guy is in his 50s, and if he's downing an entire bottle of cognac, he quite obviously has some experience with the stuff.

Mr Person said:

That's not a problem if one understands what "assumption of the risk" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk

It would mean that even if the EMTs were negligent in whatever they did that allowed him to break out of a speeding ambulance, the plaintiff could not recover because he assumed the risk that he would do something like that by voluntarily downing a fifth of hard liquor.

I'm sure there are a number of people who don't agree, but I rather hate the idea that he can recover anything. It's not like he was suffering from mental illness, from something he didn't inflict on himself.




It would be a different case if we were talking about an adult party at which a five year old guzzled a bottle of booze someone left lying around. The kid cannot voluntarily assume a risk because the kid won't even know what the stuff does. This guy is in his 50s, and if he's downing an entire bottle of cognac, he quite obviously has some experience with the stuff.

Click to expand...

Yeah no. it does not alleviate the responsibility of the medical personnel.

Mr Person said:

That's not a problem if one understands what "assumption of the risk" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk

It would mean that even if the EMTs were negligent in whatever they did that allowed him to break out of a speeding ambulance, the plaintiff could not recover because he assumed the risk that he would do something like that by voluntarily downing a fifth of hard liquor.

I'm sure there are a number of people who don't agree, but I rather hate the idea that he can recover anything. It's not like he was suffering from mental illness, from something he didn't inflict on himself.




It would be a different case if we were talking about an adult party at which a five year old guzzled a bottle of booze someone left lying around. The kid cannot voluntarily assume a risk because the kid won't even know what the stuff does. This guy is in his 50s, and if he's downing an entire bottle of cognac, he quite obviously has some experience with the stuff.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Yeah no. it does not alleviate the responsibility of the medical personnel.

Click to expand...

I wasn't asking for your legal opinion.

I was telling you what the law used to be, what it generally is now, and what I would prefer it to be.



Your personal opinion about what the law should be doesn't make any of those three things wrong. It at most means that we have a disagreement as to the third and last point: what I would prefer the law to be.

Mr Person said:

I wasn't asking for your legal opinion.

I was telling you what the law used to be, what it generally is now, and what I would prefer it to be.



Your personal opinion about what the law should be doesn't make any of those three things wrong. It at most means that we have a disagreement as to the third and last point: what I would prefer the law to be.

Click to expand...

And I am pointing out that the law that you are quoting doesn't apply in this situation... DOES NOT APPLY. And that's because he wasn't at a party..he wasn't in a street.. he wasn' t in a bar, he wasn't in a taxi. . He was in an ambulance under the care of medical personnel and that situation has different legal standards.

MaggieD said:

With your "assumption of risk" theory, I think an attorney might tell you that even a drunk is entitled to be safely transported to the hospital.

Click to expand...

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).

jaeger19 said:

And I am pointing out that the law that you are quoting doesn't apply in this situation... DOES NOT APPLY. And that's because he wasn't at a party..he wasn't in a street.. he wasn' t in a bar, he wasn't in a taxi. . He was in an ambulance under the care of medical personnel and that situation has different legal standards.

Click to expand...

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.