Interesting lawsuit

[wawa]

This is a weird one. I can see both sides of the argument. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of our resident lawyers.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-lifeguard-pool-lawsuit-rescue-a8328981.html

 

[Mable]

Thanks for the article. As a lawyer and former lifeguard, I find this very interesting.

Of course, the suit is not about saving the man's life; it is regarding the behavior of the police, lifeguard and the owner/employer of the establishment. The news account can not be trusted, and is incomplete, so comment on any legalities is impossible. There are a multitude of issues here, and we simply do not know the facts surrounding them. This circumstance would, however, provide a great question for law students in tort law and should be written up in every lifeguard manual. Good stuff.

Quere: If the man had died, would his family, or estate have a case for wrongful death?

 

[JordanR]

It all seems a well planed activity to me. If the man was so desperate to die, why don't he commit the suicide again! Why he is interested in winning the lawsuit now. The court should order the Police to throw him back to the water by after apologizing for saving him. Case closed.

 

[IM469]

Thanks for the article. As a lawyer and former lifeguard, I find this very interesting.

Of course, the suit is not about saving the man's life; it is regarding the behavior of the police, lifeguard and the owner/employer of the establishment. The news account can not be trusted, and is incomplete, so comment on any legalities is impossible. There are a multitude of issues here, and we simply do not know the facts surrounding them. This circumstance would, however, provide a great question for law students in tort law and should be written up in every lifeguard manual. Good stuff.

Quere: If the man had died, would his family, or estate have a case for wrongful death?

Yes, thanks for the article. As former Perry Mason fan and former Baywatch amare, I also find this very interesting.

Consensus ad idem, the suit is not about saving the man's life; sub judice the behavior of the police, lifeguard and the owner/employer of the establishment. As to Hamilton Burger's suggestion that 'The news account can not be trusted, and is incomplete, so comment on any legalities is impossible. There are a multitude of issues here, and we simply do not know the facts surrounding them.' I suggest that 'volenti non fit injuria' applies here. ( if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict.)

 

[Perry Mason]

As former Perry Mason fan...

Did I do or say something that displeased you? If not, why did you stop loving me?

You don't need all the facts and circumstances to understand the fundamental question Of course, we need them to find an answer.

Suicide and attempted suicide were, at one time, criminal offenses but no longer are. The police, etc., interfered with what the man was doing without any excuse or justification, in law.

The man was doing something perfectly legal -- that is he was trying to kill himself.

That was his choice to make, whatever we may think and whether or not we agree. I am sure his pain and suffering must be immense!

Suppose a woman chooses to medically abort her badly deformed fetus. Leaving all side issues on the side for the time being... does the child who is born severely handicapped then have a claim against those who refused to abort her/him? Her/his suffering and expenses must also be immense. What about the mother?

These are cases about what we might call "wrongful life"! Chew on that concept!

What these types of cases make obvious is some of the convoluted ways we think about the law!

Perry

p.s.. "Volenti non fit" does not fit! That principle is about a person who chooses to get involved in something or some situation which puts her/him at risk and then complains s/he got more than what s/he might reasonably have expected... not a perfectly accurate description of the concept, but that is the point!

 

[JaimeWolf]

Thanks for the article. As a lawyer and former lifeguard, I find this very interesting.

Of course, the suit is not about saving the man's life; it is regarding the behavior of the police, lifeguard and the owner/employer of the establishment. The news account can not be trusted, and is incomplete, so comment on any legalities is impossible. There are a multitude of issues here, and we simply do not know the facts surrounding them. This circumstance would, however, provide a great question for law students in tort law and should be written up in every lifeguard manual. Good stuff.

Quere: If the man had died, would his family, or estate have a case for wrongful death?

Remember anybody can sue anybody for anything. The case may get thrown out quickly or get settled for pennies on the dollar and you'll never hear about it again.

The lifeguard training manual goes by the principle that the lifeguard should not put him/herself in harm's way, lest there will be two victims instead of one. If the victim is behaving violently and there's a good chance he'll try to pull the lifeguard under, then standard procedure is to stay at a distance. Same for hazardous environments like electrocution risk, active shooter, etc.

 

[IM469]

Did I do or say something that displeased you? If not, why did you stop loving me?

Perry ! Your the man ! I love the pretentious jargon that serenades the courts elevating justice to a level beyond that of common folk and guaranteeing the perpetual requirement for well paid lawyers as a necessary parasite to dispensing of common sense judgement in rulings bathed in traditions as pompous as a papal coronation.

So enamoured I am with this dead language and the use to obfuscate simple arguments in effort to lend credibility to their validity, that when I see it used, I take my own simple thoughts and use Google to inflate them with enough Latin so that I too can ride over over intelligent observations with an air of unapproachable aristocracy.

Translation : I'm a fan, I couldn't resist !

BTW: For the record - when you had a client trace his own signature to trap a blackmailer - priceless ! :encouragement:

 

[mandrill]

Where is Aardvark?

I am sure that there is a common law duty on the police to preserve life and "keep the peace".

I'm putting my money on the lawsuit being successful. The plaintiff was having a psychotic episode and was in no state to look after himself. If a dazed, concussed man wandered past a police officer and strolled into traffic on the 401, does the cop not have a duty to grab his arm and hold him back before he gets killed by the traffic?

Perry is wrong. There is LOTS of legal liability for professionals who do not prevent suicides. You can sue the $2,000.00 suit off the hospital psychiatrist who releases you from the loonie bin when he suspects you are depressed and are going to slash your wrists. Suicide might not be a crime; but there is a duty imposed on certain people to do all they reasonably can to avert and prevent it.

 

[Perry Mason]

...There is LOTS of legal liability for professionals who do not prevent suicides. You can sue the $2,000.00 suit off the hospital psychiatrist who releases you from the loonie bin when he suspects you are depressed and are going to slash your wrists.

You are citing examples of liability for professional negligence, malpractice, etc.

Professionals are held to specific professional standards and they have both positive legal duties of care and contractual obligations to the client/patient. Their liability is based on their breach or failure to live up to those responsibilities.

Quite different principles from what we are talking about... apples and oranges!

Perry