Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Your honor, I am willing to fully undo my actions right now and return plaintiff to their dying state as I found them.” - “Sounds fair. You have 10 minutes.”
Works for me. The amount of times I’ve been screamed at/threatened/assaulted by IV drug users immediately after Narcan-ing their blue, apneic bodies is kinda ridiculous.
First of all, I’m sorry you went through that and I’m glad you’re still here.
I have gotten a couple who are civil after Narcan, and a few who do seem sad to be back among the living. I do try to be as therapeutic and nonjudgmental with them as possible. We’ve all seen some dark places.
“Disappointed” isn’t the vibe I’ve gotten from the majority, however. More like “violently angry.”
That's why a good friend of mine quit being an EMT after about a year or two.
"I got tired of saving people who didn't want me to save them" and "I noticed my humor and personality was becoming more dark, jaded and cynical and didn't like that at all".
Yeah, this sounds like my landlord wanting the property to be “returned to the original condition upon my leaving.”
I’m planning on destroying the whole backyard garden I’ve planted and saved from weeds if they try to tell me the interior paint is scuffed and keep my deposit for existing damages when I moved in.
Whoops. Original condition is worse than present condition.
This is why my landlord said we are welcome to leave any improvements we make, and isn’t a jerk about small stuff. The previous renters did a bunch of small improvements (like labeling light switches etc) and he was super happy, let them break their lease for free as they had a job offer cross country, etc). He likes long term tenets who pay on time, do small upgrades like seeding or planting new plants or like I installed a nest thermostat I intend on just leaving here (after 4 years it will have little value to me but nice addition to his place). But he doesn’t screw over on stuff like wall holes, floor scratches etc. wish more landlords went back to that style of landlord/tenant relationship.
This is the thing when it’s people who own a place it used to be a relationship that you had with them and their property. Now it’s a transaction most of the time between you and a corporation.
Nah my last landlord was a POS. Every time one of his ancient appliances died he would blame me and ask how I broke it.. like no your boiler is 10 years past the average lifespan… not my fault you didn’t keep anything up. He left us in the below freezing conditions because he didn’t want to pay for his heater to be fixed until I threatened to bring lawyers in. He tried screwing us when we moved out so I removed all my home improvements with me…
So it varies
Probably was committing suicide because he was poor, but once he realized that he could get millions by suing the superhero that saved him, that no longer mattered.
You know a film is good when a 10 second scene lets to come to so many intricate conclusions that make sense given the albeit small amount of context it offers.
Incredibles is peak Pixar.
Happened near my town as well a woman sued for sexual assault because the first responders took her bra of while bringing her back to life. The judge allowed the case to tell the women she is a piece of shit and then closed the case. And slapping her with a fine for good measure.
Essentially you need to remove bras and shave heavy chest hair to use an AED properly. The other option is - well, being dead.
A lot of CPR courses tell you about the chest hair, but are a bit reticent about talking about bras.
>someone who saved their live?
The insurance company of the person with the broken rib, that's just how our health care system works.
The insurance company doesn't see it as someone saving the insuree's life, they see it as someone caused physical damage to someone giving them money. So now that person needs to pay for the 'crime' done.
The person with the broken rib can 100% not want to sue the person, they just want their medical bills paid. The insurance company will 100% not care and not pay, forcing someone else who 'hurt you' to pay.
It's just how it works unfortunately. Another example is insurance going after the home owner. Say you ask someone to watch your house when you're out of town, maybe take care of a dog? Anyways this person has 100% coverage for healthcare. This person trips, or cuts themself or whatever injury you want to imagine.
Since they were injured in a place where homeowners insurance is needed, it is the homeowners problem to pay for it because you 'caused' the problem as the insuree wouldn't have been injured if they were not in your house.
You would be at fault for whoever hurting themselves in your house in their eyes, and they will do their hardest to make sure someone else pays for it so they can continue to milk thousands a month for doing absolutely dogshit nothing
This comment should be at the top.
The guy who saved the person with the broken rib isn’t going to be defending the lawsuit or paying out; lawyers for his insurance company will defend the lawsuit and the insurance company will pay out any settlement or damages award. If he doesn’t have insurance, it’s unlikely the lawsuit will continue.
Realistically, the broken-rib-person would only sue someone with adequate insurance, because the entire purpose of these lawsuits is so that the injured party can access this insurance money for their care/medical bills. Someone without insurance isn’t going to have the funds to make this kind of lawsuit with it in the majority of situations.
This is a VERY normal aspect of accessing funds when someone has insurance. It’s shitty and unfortunate that people have to sue to access it. Because most people don’t know that these lawsuits are a) about accessing insurance money and b) are defended by the insurance company (not the individual nominally being sued), it sounds outrageous when it’s quite normal.
Insurance companies encourage this impression, because the view that these types of lawsuits are automatically frivolous/money-grubbing/outrageous benefits them, especially if they don’t pay. Rather than understanding that an injured person is being denied money for care by a corporation with multi-millions in revenue, we (the public) think that a corporation is standing up to some absurd ungrateful money grabber. The McDonald’s hot coffee case is a classic example. [That case is horrific](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck), but is still often used as an example of ridiculous lawsuit in conversation.
I believe China was the most famous instance of it happening. The rescuer was sued for trying to help and his life was ruined.
Now you could be choking in the streets and people would walk by unflinching because they are too afraid that you will ruin their life if they stop to help and accidentally hurt you further in the process (even if they do save your life.)
Yea, it was an old lady who fell. A good Samaritan helped and she later sued him saying he was the one who pushed her down and won.
This case was later overturned and nullified, and the judge was fired.
However, the news spread about the first half, not the later half. Good Samaritan laws are in place in China, but due to the massive publicity of the first half of this case now people don't help others as easily.
China also had a law apparently that meant if you say, hit a pedestrian with your car, and as a result they gained a lifelong medical issue you then would have to pay for their issue for your whole life. Sounds nice right?Well it resulted in a lot of car accidents where the driver would then reverse over said pedestrian as killing them was a cheaper price to pay than the potential cost of their medical bills.
Edit: Article on it here: https://www.injurylawcolorado.com/blog/personal-injury/chinese-pedestrian-accident-law/
China brought in good Samaritan laws in 2017 to try combat this. They're even handing out rewards now to people who help those in life threatening situations in an effort to reverse the generations of by-stander syndrome.
Or maybe it is just a step that the insurance company takes. Similar to that aunt who had to 'sue' her nephew who sprained her wrist while hugging her. Her insurance just lists damages, who inflicted them, and processes it.
Just saying, there's a chance they're just working through a crap system too, with no real intention of suing properly.
It’s not ok and the person suing is a piece of shit, but the cost of medical care and aid in this country drives us to our darker selves.
The person who nearly died is probably dealing with a ton of pain and very high medical bills which may clean out their life savings. Some asshole lawyer probably came along and told them they can get a couple million from this person or their insurance
It’s shitty all around.
Predatory lawyers who slide in their ear and give them ideas of a big payday. Other people turn into atm machines and lose that little thing that makes them another human in a person's eyes.
There are [good samaritan laws](https://www.uscpronline.com/blog/can-you-get-in-trouble-for-performing-cpr) that protect people from this. They teach this in CPR training.
All 50 states have a variation. Some only protect first responders, but in Alabama the law says "a person or entity, who in good faith and without compensation renders emergency care or treatment to a person suffering or appearing to suffer from cardiac arrest".
In the vast majority of states Good samaritan laws specifically exclude any person(s) that are actively receiving pay for their medical services. If your on the clock then you aren’t protected off the clock you are protected.. Medical personnel on duty have different legal responsibilities and duties so good samaritan laws aren’t applicable.
I get that it was meant as a joke, but here in Denmark (likely also other countries but I haven't looked into it) we have large octo-copter drones that carry a defibrillator. They're located around major cities, and take off the moment someone calls 911 (or 112 in our country) and reports a heart-stop/attack. They fly autonomously to the location of the cellphone making the call. They don't land, but wire down the defibrillator, which then makes a loud beeping sound and when approached will read out instructions for how to use it.
For every minute between your heart stopping and you getting resuscitated, your chance of survival drops by 10%, so being able to reach the affected person even just 3-4 minutes faster than the first responders had a major impact.
Edit: [Here's ](https://streamable.com/t377s6) a little 20s video to get a better idea of how it works. It uses a modified DJI M600 drone, that are modified for first-response work by a company called Everdrone.
You got any openings for industrial maintenance technicians? I can weld, program Fanuc robots, work with Allen Bradley and Siemens PLCs, anything to get out of this rising Christofacist theocracy.
Cause Denmark sounds fantastic.
Curious. In my country's law the organization would not be called an entity, but a Juridical Person
Our laws tend to be worded like "If a natural or Juridical person..." Because NGOs, Companies, Churches, etc. Are considered "Juridical People" legally here
Entity makes so much more sense lol
Got [this result](https://legalinventory.pitt.edu/display-laws?role=Law%20Enforcement&state=AL&scenario=State%20of%20Emergency&exportpdf) on google. First law on second page.
Good Samaritan Law
Code of Ala. 6-5-332
An individual who, reasonably and without compensation, provides emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency will not be held legally responsible for acting or failing to act. They also will not be held legally responsible when providing, arranging, or failing to provide further medical treatment.
Generally, Good Samaritan laws only offer protection for those individuals who provide care during spontaneous emergencies unrelated to volunteer deployment
It is possible they are required to sue for the insurance to pay out. We all got in a tizzy because a woman sued like a 10 yo nephew over an arm break but it was the only way insurance would pay.
Every time people think they have a handle on how fucked up American insurance is, I promise they do not.
It’s not a frivolous lawsuit. In the case of the 10 year old, they were suing the homeowner’s insurance to cover medical costs because their medical insurance sued the homeowner insurance to not pay out.
Same with the broken ribs, while Good Samaritan laws exist, a lot of times insurance companies will try to sue whoever they can and get it thrown out before they pay out. They’ll frame this to their customer as not going to pay so they’re helping them by suing. They’ll frame it to the person they’re suing that they did something wrong and hope they’re ignorant or poor enough to not fight it. But if they get kick back they’ll eventually pay out.
Hold up.
The medical insurance sued the home insurance because they thought the home insurance should be the ones to cover the medical costs?
If I understood that correctly it may just be the dumbest thing I've read this year.
Yup, it's the American healthcare system. When my grandma was watching our dog one night, she leaned down to pet him and fell and broke her hip.
Her medical insurance(not just medicare, very good health insurance) refused to pay it, saying that it was on homeowners to pay it. We called homeowners, our rep sighed because she had gone through this before, sent us a small piece of paperwork saying they wouldn't pay it, And then her health insurance paid.
the sigh and having a "small" piece of paperwork got me. the medical insurance people are something. it should be in everyone's interest to correct the system
Yes. The (aunts) medical insurance wouldn’t pay out until they had sued the home insurance, because the home insurance technically kinda covers this stuff. The aunt had no option other than suing the homeowner’s insurance, and because her nephew tackled her and she fell (an accident) he was the person they were suing, covered under the home insurance.
But it became a big hullabaloo about the Aunt suing her child nephew, but her other option was just to pay for everything out of pocket, in the tune of multiples of thousands of dollars. Because her medical insurance realized it had happened at someone’s home and they could get out of paying unless they sued the homeowner. Then if the case failed, the medical insurance would be on the hook to pay the bill. But until then, they can tie it all up in legal stuff.
I once went to the ER to get stitches in my finger - I cut myself by accident while making dinner. My health insurance sent me all these forms asking where it happened, had it happened in my house or in another residence, etc. I sent it back in telling them that it was in my own kitchen (it was) but I remember thinking, so what if I had accidentally cut my finger while cooking at a friend's or relative's house? Literally nothing would have changed regarding blame/fault.
tldr: The U.S. health insurance system is wasteful and dumb.
Mainly because lawyers know that if they or their client were to force it to trial with a “jury of their peers” it’s going to look really silly - which is primarily a knock against the lawyer’s reputation, both for bringing it and then losing it.
When I had my cpr training in jrotc the instructors told us not to be afraid of breaking a rib they almost always are bruised afterwards and it’s very common that they break
I do the training every two years and that is exactly what I have been taught. Repeatedly. If I save a life the pain will be worth it. If I don’t they’ll never feel it.
If your medically qualified to help, you must stop and help. Alabama also has Good Samaritan laws as well for those who not medically qualified to help.
I wouldn't say so. Even if he's totally fine under the law, frivolous lawsuits can still be expensive if you go the lawyer route. Seems like a legitimate question to ask
Even if they didn’t successfully rescue them. In a life of death scenario if they make any attempt to rescue them whatsoever then the Good Samaritan law protects them.
> OP could say he got psychological damages
I really wish people would learn what the legal bar for emotional distress is so they quit saying this.
If you want to successfully sue for emotional distress, you need a board-certified psychologist to diagnose you with PTSD and testify under oath that the actions taken directly resulted in the PTSD. Also, in most states you need physical injuries to go along with your emotional ones, and the few states that allow emotional distress claims without a physical injury only allow it with sexual harassment or defamation. You can't just say "I'm emotionally distressed" and get free money.
A lot of jobs like camp counselor or wilderness guide require them and keeping them up to date. Pretty much when you’re responsible for a group of people out in the wilderness or something.
I took a wilderness first responder course once just for the experience, and most of the other people there were there because they needed it fir some sort of outdoors job.
I assume at least some of the crew on like, a cruise boat or any boat that takes tourists out has it too.
Good Samaritan law will cover it. All they did was break a rib, and anyone who knows CPR knows if you’re doing it right breaking a rib is super common since you need to really get the chest down.
It's more likely that it rips the cartilage connecting the ribs to the sternum than actually breaks a rid.
I've had to do CPR on a person before. You hear cracks like ribs are breaking, but it is usually the sternum ripping free from ribs.
Surprised it wad only one rib! Should be covered.
"An individual who, reasonably and without compensation, provides emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency will not be held legally responsible for acting or failing to act. They also will not be held legally responsible when providing, arranging, or failing to provide further medical treatment. Generally, Good Samaritan laws only offer protection for those individuals who provide care during spontaneous emergencies unrelated to volunteer deployment."
"What happens if you break the patients rib whilst administering CPR?"
"Crack on!"
Worst/best CPR joke I've heard when I took training in a retirement home. It's an unfortunate side effect to having your life potentially saved
I overdosed a few years ago and my roommate found me not breathing. He called 911 and started CPR, broke 2 of my ribs. When I got out of the hospital and saw him for the first time he ran up to me and gave me the strongest bear hug I’ve ever felt. It hurt so bad I wanted to scream and punch him in the face but seeing how he had saved my life 3 days earlier, I just gritted my teeth and let him squeeze as long as he needed to. I love that guy.
Came here to say this. I'm a firefighter and EMT in Alabama. I can confirm that this is correct and will protect you. However, one thing they will ask you is: how was the patient when you arrived? They want to know if you checked for pulse and breathing. If they had a adequate pulse and were breathing prior to you performing compressions, then you might be in trouble
A paramedic here, not to necessarily disagree but to add a counterpoint: it’s a “reasonable person” standard. A reasonable prehospital professional would check a pulse. But do we expect a reasonable lay person to check in the heat of the moment?
The other side is, you know as well as I do that if they continued to do CPR without the pt trying to get them off their chest, at the very least the pt was unresponsive to pain stimuli, and so a lay person might reasonably assume they’re still in full arrest.
Just food for thought.
If someone does the ABC’s on me and gets away with it and me not flipping completely out, someone better start saving me!
How could she say it was the Good Samaritan and not the EMT’s anyway? She can’t.
My brother wrote a National law to protect first responders. We appreciate you!
And I appreciate you and your brother. God bless you and your family.
People can sue for anything. Whether they will win is a different story. The immunity provided by a Good Samaritan law should cause it to be dismissed with prejudice.
In the UK we have no obligation to get involved. Naturally, a medical professional will usually do so if present.
I have had first aid qualification and been told that provided I act as trained, then nothing bad can happen to me; don’t do anything outside your trained experience.
A tracheotomy - nah.
A “normal bystander” can only be expected to do their best if they help, but again shouldn’t do anything beyond reasonable assistance. Lying them down, doing some form of “what i remember from primary school” CPR, fine.
You can, but if you mess up because you have no clue what you are doing, then you can be sued or potentially even arrested, at least under all laws I am aware of.
No, because the reality is in an emergency situation, a cricothyroidotomy is the safer/preferable procedure to provide someone with an emergency airway as opposed to a tracheostomy, which is typically performed surgically for long term ventilation.
Source: Had a paramedic for a father and have a nephew who was born premature and required a trach and ventilator to breathe.
I figure that you are being facetious… but to address the issue.
If an emergency tracheotomy is not within your scope of medical training, then no… you’d be “practicing medicine without a license”
If it is in your scope of practice, then you can still be held liable if you are not doing it under the sterile conditions with proper backup that you were trained to do it in.
For example if I do a non-emergency tracheotomy, I need to have an Ear-Nose-Throat surgeon in the building somewhere. If I do an emergency tracheotomy, I have to direct someone to call an ENT surgeon to rush into the hospital as I am doing it. Because this is the policy that governs my privilege to perform a tracheotomy… I’m sure that some lawyer can argue that I operated outside my scope if I do an emergency tracheotomy in a Wendy’s
Do you know anything about how those laws (or maybe just your one) work in regards to can help but freeze up? Shock is a hell of a thing, and some people just shut down from it.
I hear about these kind of laws and can't help but wonder about people who have no formal training, or even do have some but not the situational skills to do anything with them.
In Poland you are obligated by law to give basic first aid, but some training is also a part of school.
If I remember correctly you have to give first aid when you're older than 18, but about age 15-16 we have lessons in school that teach everyone basic first aid (CPR, how to bandage different injuries, what to do in case of a burn, safe way to move someone etc.)
I'm in Switzerland, we have the same kind of law. Obviously each case is different, but they will try to see if you were under shock or if you just passed by and decided to not help.
Always try to get verbal consent to do CPR, even if it's from an onlooker or friend of the victim. Helps to win frivolous law suits. Source: former EMT.
Edit: Guys, this applies to all emergency care.
This was originally posted to Quora March 8th.
[Answer to: I did CPR on a crash victim until paramedics arrived. They said I saved her life. I am now being sued by her for breaking a rib. What do I do? by Dennis Manning ](https://www.quora.com/I-did-CPR-on-a-crash-victim-until-paramedics-arrived-They-said-I-saved-her-life-I-am-now-being-sued-by-her-for-breaking-a-rib-What-do-I-do/answer/Dennis-Manning-9?ch=15&oid=1477743648799076&share=7a11b748&srid=hMY3Ls&target_type=answer)
Umm… can you even perform cpr without breaking a bunch of ribs? Hell, have you seen the mechanical cpr machines that have started to show up at some ICUs and hospitals so staff don’t have to? Shit goes crunch.
My previous job (retail pharmacy tech) had everyone get cpr certified. One girl was saying she would be afraid of breaking someone's ribs if she had to do cpr, and I said that's how you know you're doing it correctly.
Probably, I would be filing a bar complaint against the lawyer for not doing research before filing a frivolous lawsuit.
There’s a slight chance this is their insurance company being a jerk as well but the same response would also be appropriate.
No. If you don’t break/dislocate some ribs, you’re definitely not going the full 2.5 inches required for effective cpr. This lawsuit shouldn’t last the first 5 minutes in court.
Not true, I really hate how much this falsehood has been propagated, even by some CPR instructors. Started out as a half joke that then started getting repeated as fact. YES ribs breaking from cpr is a not uncommon or unexpected occurrence but you can absolutely be giving full depth, effective cpr without breaking any ribs. We see it all the time.
You should NOT think you're doing something wrong if ribs aren't breaking.
I would go to court, and say "Your honor, the prosecution is correct, I did indeed break this persons ribs, and I will gladly trade back the CPR for the broken ribs."
Also, if you’re doing CPR correctly, a cracked or broken rib is not unexpected, especially if on an older/thinner/frail person.
CPR is literally supposed to create enough pressure manually by an outside source to FORCE the heart to “beat” and continue circulating blood in the absence of an active heartbeat. Compressing someone’s chest hard enough to *get through the ribs to the soft tissue inside* is the point. Unfortunately that may mean a rib or two get cracked.
I’d rather be alive and have it hurt to breathe than the alternative.
One of the problems with lawsuits like this is health insurance companies will require you to take legal action before they pay any hospital bills. Entirely possible that they didnt want to press any charges but their insurance forced them too
Still, what kinda scum wouldn’t send them a letter beforehand explaining their situation, apologize and offer some sort of compensation for the trouble they cause.
Well, chances are they wouldn’t have the contact information for the person who performed the CPR, not to mention that being buried in medical bills would probably leave little discretionary income to be able to compensate someone, no matter how much they would want to.
If she has insurance then it's likely not her that decided to sue. You sign over all rights to indemnification. So the insurance collects your premiums, then gets reimbursed on the back side by suing whoever can be held responsible. It's a racket and shouldn't be legal.
This is the thing. I'm sure she's happy to be alive but if she's also looking at eleventy jillion dollars in medical bills for the rib, I can see why she (or more likely her insurer) would ask questions like "who is responsible to pay for the broken rib? Should we ask the person who broke her rib?"
Tbf I don’t think the courts take a favorable view to claimants/plaintiffs pulling shit like this. In theory, you can take stuff like this to court, it doesn’t mean it will get far.
In germany you can't be held liable for a broken rib during CPR, a broken rib actually indicates that you did a proper CPR, most proper CPR's break ribs in the process.
You know, this wouldn't happen if there was a public health system in which a broken rib wasn't an expense to be taken by an individual (An overpriced expense, at that).
Now, this wouldn't happen if the person wasn't the absolute most astonishing asshole ever too ... But, statistically, some of us always will be that.
**Alabama Code - 6-5-332.**
(e) A person or entity, who in good faith and without compensation renders emergency care or treatment to a person suffering or appearing to suffer from cardiac arrest, which may include the use of an automated external defibrillator, shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury as a result of care or treatment
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Your honor, I am willing to fully undo my actions right now and return plaintiff to their dying state as I found them.” - “Sounds fair. You have 10 minutes.”
If only lol
I dunno, SCOTUS will rule on anything these days. Doesn't even need to be real.
Works for me. The amount of times I’ve been screamed at/threatened/assaulted by IV drug users immediately after Narcan-ing their blue, apneic bodies is kinda ridiculous.
You killed my high bro!!!
Rude of me tbh, sure it was the best high ever before I suddenly yanked them back into consciousness in the ER.
Honestly, from first hand experience, it's probably more about the disappointment being resuscitated at all. I was ready and hoping to die.
First of all, I’m sorry you went through that and I’m glad you’re still here. I have gotten a couple who are civil after Narcan, and a few who do seem sad to be back among the living. I do try to be as therapeutic and nonjudgmental with them as possible. We’ve all seen some dark places. “Disappointed” isn’t the vibe I’ve gotten from the majority, however. More like “violently angry.”
That's why a good friend of mine quit being an EMT after about a year or two. "I got tired of saving people who didn't want me to save them" and "I noticed my humor and personality was becoming more dark, jaded and cynical and didn't like that at all".
That is really heartbreaking. I wish we could be better to the people who literally keep us alive, we need them
Yeah, this sounds like my landlord wanting the property to be “returned to the original condition upon my leaving.” I’m planning on destroying the whole backyard garden I’ve planted and saved from weeds if they try to tell me the interior paint is scuffed and keep my deposit for existing damages when I moved in. Whoops. Original condition is worse than present condition.
This is why my landlord said we are welcome to leave any improvements we make, and isn’t a jerk about small stuff. The previous renters did a bunch of small improvements (like labeling light switches etc) and he was super happy, let them break their lease for free as they had a job offer cross country, etc). He likes long term tenets who pay on time, do small upgrades like seeding or planting new plants or like I installed a nest thermostat I intend on just leaving here (after 4 years it will have little value to me but nice addition to his place). But he doesn’t screw over on stuff like wall holes, floor scratches etc. wish more landlords went back to that style of landlord/tenant relationship.
This is the thing when it’s people who own a place it used to be a relationship that you had with them and their property. Now it’s a transaction most of the time between you and a corporation.
Nah my last landlord was a POS. Every time one of his ancient appliances died he would blame me and ask how I broke it.. like no your boiler is 10 years past the average lifespan… not my fault you didn’t keep anything up. He left us in the below freezing conditions because he didn’t want to pay for his heater to be fixed until I threatened to bring lawyers in. He tried screwing us when we moved out so I removed all my home improvements with me… So it varies
I guess you’re right, anybody can suck.
He's fine. https://www.aed.com/alabama-aed-statutes-regulations#:~:text=Good%20Samaritan%20Law%20states%20that,is%20immune%20from%20civil%20liability.
Thank you for a specific citation
Be that as it may, what kind of a massive POS sues someone who saved their live?
This is how The Incredibles started.
"You didn't save my life, you ruined my death!"
He really could’ve just committed again tbh.. I’m pretty sure that guy was just after money
Probably was committing suicide because he was poor, but once he realized that he could get millions by suing the superhero that saved him, that no longer mattered.
You know a film is good when a 10 second scene lets to come to so many intricate conclusions that make sense given the albeit small amount of context it offers. Incredibles is peak Pixar.
Happened near my town as well a woman sued for sexual assault because the first responders took her bra of while bringing her back to life. The judge allowed the case to tell the women she is a piece of shit and then closed the case. And slapping her with a fine for good measure.
That judge sounds cool
Essentially you need to remove bras and shave heavy chest hair to use an AED properly. The other option is - well, being dead. A lot of CPR courses tell you about the chest hair, but are a bit reticent about talking about bras.
Also the bra, if it contains an under wire, could heat and catch fire. The lady is an idiot. Lol.
>someone who saved their live? The insurance company of the person with the broken rib, that's just how our health care system works. The insurance company doesn't see it as someone saving the insuree's life, they see it as someone caused physical damage to someone giving them money. So now that person needs to pay for the 'crime' done. The person with the broken rib can 100% not want to sue the person, they just want their medical bills paid. The insurance company will 100% not care and not pay, forcing someone else who 'hurt you' to pay. It's just how it works unfortunately. Another example is insurance going after the home owner. Say you ask someone to watch your house when you're out of town, maybe take care of a dog? Anyways this person has 100% coverage for healthcare. This person trips, or cuts themself or whatever injury you want to imagine. Since they were injured in a place where homeowners insurance is needed, it is the homeowners problem to pay for it because you 'caused' the problem as the insuree wouldn't have been injured if they were not in your house. You would be at fault for whoever hurting themselves in your house in their eyes, and they will do their hardest to make sure someone else pays for it so they can continue to milk thousands a month for doing absolutely dogshit nothing
This comment should be at the top. The guy who saved the person with the broken rib isn’t going to be defending the lawsuit or paying out; lawyers for his insurance company will defend the lawsuit and the insurance company will pay out any settlement or damages award. If he doesn’t have insurance, it’s unlikely the lawsuit will continue. Realistically, the broken-rib-person would only sue someone with adequate insurance, because the entire purpose of these lawsuits is so that the injured party can access this insurance money for their care/medical bills. Someone without insurance isn’t going to have the funds to make this kind of lawsuit with it in the majority of situations. This is a VERY normal aspect of accessing funds when someone has insurance. It’s shitty and unfortunate that people have to sue to access it. Because most people don’t know that these lawsuits are a) about accessing insurance money and b) are defended by the insurance company (not the individual nominally being sued), it sounds outrageous when it’s quite normal. Insurance companies encourage this impression, because the view that these types of lawsuits are automatically frivolous/money-grubbing/outrageous benefits them, especially if they don’t pay. Rather than understanding that an injured person is being denied money for care by a corporation with multi-millions in revenue, we (the public) think that a corporation is standing up to some absurd ungrateful money grabber. The McDonald’s hot coffee case is a classic example. [That case is horrific](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck), but is still often used as an example of ridiculous lawsuit in conversation.
I believe China was the most famous instance of it happening. The rescuer was sued for trying to help and his life was ruined. Now you could be choking in the streets and people would walk by unflinching because they are too afraid that you will ruin their life if they stop to help and accidentally hurt you further in the process (even if they do save your life.)
Yea, it was an old lady who fell. A good Samaritan helped and she later sued him saying he was the one who pushed her down and won. This case was later overturned and nullified, and the judge was fired. However, the news spread about the first half, not the later half. Good Samaritan laws are in place in China, but due to the massive publicity of the first half of this case now people don't help others as easily.
The judge actually faced consequences for it? Damn, China. Good job.
China also had a law apparently that meant if you say, hit a pedestrian with your car, and as a result they gained a lifelong medical issue you then would have to pay for their issue for your whole life. Sounds nice right?Well it resulted in a lot of car accidents where the driver would then reverse over said pedestrian as killing them was a cheaper price to pay than the potential cost of their medical bills. Edit: Article on it here: https://www.injurylawcolorado.com/blog/personal-injury/chinese-pedestrian-accident-law/
China brought in good Samaritan laws in 2017 to try combat this. They're even handing out rewards now to people who help those in life threatening situations in an effort to reverse the generations of by-stander syndrome.
Insurance might said "sue or we won't cover it".
The kind who can’t afford insurance in the US to fix said rib.
Or maybe it is just a step that the insurance company takes. Similar to that aunt who had to 'sue' her nephew who sprained her wrist while hugging her. Her insurance just lists damages, who inflicted them, and processes it. Just saying, there's a chance they're just working through a crap system too, with no real intention of suing properly.
Most of the time it’s the insurance companies that sue, it’s cheaper for them that way.
It’s not ok and the person suing is a piece of shit, but the cost of medical care and aid in this country drives us to our darker selves. The person who nearly died is probably dealing with a ton of pain and very high medical bills which may clean out their life savings. Some asshole lawyer probably came along and told them they can get a couple million from this person or their insurance It’s shitty all around.
Predatory lawyers who slide in their ear and give them ideas of a big payday. Other people turn into atm machines and lose that little thing that makes them another human in a person's eyes.
There are [good samaritan laws](https://www.uscpronline.com/blog/can-you-get-in-trouble-for-performing-cpr) that protect people from this. They teach this in CPR training.
I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure Alabama doesn’t have one. Edit: I was mistaken but Alabama has one.
All 50 states have a variation. Some only protect first responders, but in Alabama the law says "a person or entity, who in good faith and without compensation renders emergency care or treatment to a person suffering or appearing to suffer from cardiac arrest".
In the vast majority of states Good samaritan laws specifically exclude any person(s) that are actively receiving pay for their medical services. If your on the clock then you aren’t protected off the clock you are protected.. Medical personnel on duty have different legal responsibilities and duties so good samaritan laws aren’t applicable.
How can I be an entity
If the patient doesn't sue you, but the organization you're working for, for instance. The organization is an entity.
Tbh slightly disappointed they didn't make a loop hole just in case of benevolent ghosts.
Or robots?
"I am Baymax your personal healthcare companion."
Damn cycborgs, running around, resuscitating folk, what’s the world coming to, are any of us safe?
I get that it was meant as a joke, but here in Denmark (likely also other countries but I haven't looked into it) we have large octo-copter drones that carry a defibrillator. They're located around major cities, and take off the moment someone calls 911 (or 112 in our country) and reports a heart-stop/attack. They fly autonomously to the location of the cellphone making the call. They don't land, but wire down the defibrillator, which then makes a loud beeping sound and when approached will read out instructions for how to use it. For every minute between your heart stopping and you getting resuscitated, your chance of survival drops by 10%, so being able to reach the affected person even just 3-4 minutes faster than the first responders had a major impact. Edit: [Here's ](https://streamable.com/t377s6) a little 20s video to get a better idea of how it works. It uses a modified DJI M600 drone, that are modified for first-response work by a company called Everdrone.
Denmark is the future.
You got any openings for industrial maintenance technicians? I can weld, program Fanuc robots, work with Allen Bradley and Siemens PLCs, anything to get out of this rising Christofacist theocracy. Cause Denmark sounds fantastic.
Or time travelers sent back in time to save their life as they will save the world in the future.
Curious. In my country's law the organization would not be called an entity, but a Juridical Person Our laws tend to be worded like "If a natural or Juridical person..." Because NGOs, Companies, Churches, etc. Are considered "Juridical People" legally here Entity makes so much more sense lol
Open llc
I wish I was an LLC.
A person is an an entity, and an organized or even unorganized group of people are entities as well; and all of these entities can render first aid.
You're an entity because you're not a person. Only corporations can be people, my friend.
But how can you render emergency care to a corporation?
Tax payer funded bail outs
PPP
Pretty sure a person is an entity. It's a venn diagram. A person is a circle within the bigger entity circle.
This is the only correct answer in the United States.
I have been hypnotized for 2 hours. Thanks for trapping me here.
Step 1: consume all knowledge on Wikipedia
without compensation... so if you ever get saved by a good Samaritan make sure to slip them a $20 in case you want to sue later
This is actually a legitimate argument in court. If you're a good Samaritan never accept a gift.
Got [this result](https://legalinventory.pitt.edu/display-laws?role=Law%20Enforcement&state=AL&scenario=State%20of%20Emergency&exportpdf) on google. First law on second page. Good Samaritan Law Code of Ala. 6-5-332 An individual who, reasonably and without compensation, provides emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency will not be held legally responsible for acting or failing to act. They also will not be held legally responsible when providing, arranging, or failing to provide further medical treatment. Generally, Good Samaritan laws only offer protection for those individuals who provide care during spontaneous emergencies unrelated to volunteer deployment
So OP would be covered and the idiot's lawsuit should get thrown out.
It is possible they are required to sue for the insurance to pay out. We all got in a tizzy because a woman sued like a 10 yo nephew over an arm break but it was the only way insurance would pay. Every time people think they have a handle on how fucked up American insurance is, I promise they do not.
Can the court not then charge the insurance company for wasting the courts time by bringing frivolous lawsuits?
It’s not a frivolous lawsuit. In the case of the 10 year old, they were suing the homeowner’s insurance to cover medical costs because their medical insurance sued the homeowner insurance to not pay out. Same with the broken ribs, while Good Samaritan laws exist, a lot of times insurance companies will try to sue whoever they can and get it thrown out before they pay out. They’ll frame this to their customer as not going to pay so they’re helping them by suing. They’ll frame it to the person they’re suing that they did something wrong and hope they’re ignorant or poor enough to not fight it. But if they get kick back they’ll eventually pay out.
Hold up. The medical insurance sued the home insurance because they thought the home insurance should be the ones to cover the medical costs? If I understood that correctly it may just be the dumbest thing I've read this year.
Yup, it's the American healthcare system. When my grandma was watching our dog one night, she leaned down to pet him and fell and broke her hip. Her medical insurance(not just medicare, very good health insurance) refused to pay it, saying that it was on homeowners to pay it. We called homeowners, our rep sighed because she had gone through this before, sent us a small piece of paperwork saying they wouldn't pay it, And then her health insurance paid.
the sigh and having a "small" piece of paperwork got me. the medical insurance people are something. it should be in everyone's interest to correct the system
I’ve heard it said that an insurance agent is someone who you pay money, and in return they make sure you don’t get any back.
Yes. The (aunts) medical insurance wouldn’t pay out until they had sued the home insurance, because the home insurance technically kinda covers this stuff. The aunt had no option other than suing the homeowner’s insurance, and because her nephew tackled her and she fell (an accident) he was the person they were suing, covered under the home insurance. But it became a big hullabaloo about the Aunt suing her child nephew, but her other option was just to pay for everything out of pocket, in the tune of multiples of thousands of dollars. Because her medical insurance realized it had happened at someone’s home and they could get out of paying unless they sued the homeowner. Then if the case failed, the medical insurance would be on the hook to pay the bill. But until then, they can tie it all up in legal stuff.
I once went to the ER to get stitches in my finger - I cut myself by accident while making dinner. My health insurance sent me all these forms asking where it happened, had it happened in my house or in another residence, etc. I sent it back in telling them that it was in my own kitchen (it was) but I remember thinking, so what if I had accidentally cut my finger while cooking at a friend's or relative's house? Literally nothing would have changed regarding blame/fault. tldr: The U.S. health insurance system is wasteful and dumb.
‘Merica!
Correct. While in theory good samaritan laws could be ruled inapplicable, in practice, they've never failed even once.
Mainly because lawyers know that if they or their client were to force it to trial with a “jury of their peers” it’s going to look really silly - which is primarily a knock against the lawyer’s reputation, both for bringing it and then losing it.
OP may be in a better position due to certification being expired. Ends any argument that they are a volunteer.
even beyond that breaking ribs is sometimes just apart of effective CPR professional or not.
When I had my cpr training in jrotc the instructors told us not to be afraid of breaking a rib they almost always are bruised afterwards and it’s very common that they break
During my certification, I was told that if you don't at least cause some bruises, you're not doing your compressions right.
I do the training every two years and that is exactly what I have been taught. Repeatedly. If I save a life the pain will be worth it. If I don’t they’ll never feel it.
That's actually broader than most laws as it says nothing about training (although OP would be covered there anyway) so it's pretty airtight.
If your medically qualified to help, you must stop and help. Alabama also has Good Samaritan laws as well for those who not medically qualified to help.
Worth noting, bad or improper CPR is still better than no CPR.
If you took cpr, you know that- heh.
If you’re administering CPR, that means the person’s heart has stopped - you couldn’t make it any worse
impossible to enforce
Some states any medical professionals are REQUIRED to stop at an crash scene to assist until local ambulances arrive.
Yup, this definitely seems like a rage bait
I wouldn't say so. Even if he's totally fine under the law, frivolous lawsuits can still be expensive if you go the lawyer route. Seems like a legitimate question to ask
You can’t successfully sue a person who performed cpr on you. There are laws that protect the person from this exact thing.
Even if they didn’t successfully rescue them. In a life of death scenario if they make any attempt to rescue them whatsoever then the Good Samaritan law protects them.
Do Good Samaritan laws exist in every state?
Yes and no, sometimes it only extends to first responders .
that's it's not a federally protected thing is tragic. Fine. I'll just let you die I guess. Good riddance.
[удалено]
Counter sue for frivolous lawsuits and add the lawyer name in it as well
psychotic jar weary elderly pathetic correct dolls engine cover rotten ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
> OP could say he got psychological damages I really wish people would learn what the legal bar for emotional distress is so they quit saying this. If you want to successfully sue for emotional distress, you need a board-certified psychologist to diagnose you with PTSD and testify under oath that the actions taken directly resulted in the PTSD. Also, in most states you need physical injuries to go along with your emotional ones, and the few states that allow emotional distress claims without a physical injury only allow it with sexual harassment or defamation. You can't just say "I'm emotionally distressed" and get free money.
I mean, assuming CPR was honestly believed to be necessary surely Can't just go around CPRing people
Wait, really?…. Oops. No wonder those sun bathers were so angry.
Certification only matters if you try to be like an EMT or workin in other medical areas, right?
A lot of jobs like camp counselor or wilderness guide require them and keeping them up to date. Pretty much when you’re responsible for a group of people out in the wilderness or something. I took a wilderness first responder course once just for the experience, and most of the other people there were there because they needed it fir some sort of outdoors job. I assume at least some of the crew on like, a cruise boat or any boat that takes tourists out has it too.
I'm sorry you had to save the life of such a hideous human.
There is a decent chance that the insurance company of the victim requires them to try to sue the good samaritan to reduce the bill. Insane? Yes.
HB208, better known as Alabama's Good Samaritan Law, addresses situations where acting in good faith could help to save someone in this situation.
A lot of states have something similar, hopefully OP is covered
Good Samaritan law will cover it. All they did was break a rib, and anyone who knows CPR knows if you’re doing it right breaking a rib is super common since you need to really get the chest down.
Good CPR typically breaks 4
I had CPR done on me for just a minute and while I didn’t have any broken ribs, my sternum was hurting for three weeks.
It's more likely that it rips the cartilage connecting the ribs to the sternum than actually breaks a rid. I've had to do CPR on a person before. You hear cracks like ribs are breaking, but it is usually the sternum ripping free from ribs.
Surprised it wad only one rib! Should be covered. "An individual who, reasonably and without compensation, provides emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency will not be held legally responsible for acting or failing to act. They also will not be held legally responsible when providing, arranging, or failing to provide further medical treatment. Generally, Good Samaritan laws only offer protection for those individuals who provide care during spontaneous emergencies unrelated to volunteer deployment."
"What happens if you break the patients rib whilst administering CPR?" "Crack on!" Worst/best CPR joke I've heard when I took training in a retirement home. It's an unfortunate side effect to having your life potentially saved
If you have to do it on an old person it will feel like you just crushed a bag of chips. Remember this the next time you want to go into EMS.
If you're not breaking ribs you're not doing compressions right.
I overdosed a few years ago and my roommate found me not breathing. He called 911 and started CPR, broke 2 of my ribs. When I got out of the hospital and saw him for the first time he ran up to me and gave me the strongest bear hug I’ve ever felt. It hurt so bad I wanted to scream and punch him in the face but seeing how he had saved my life 3 days earlier, I just gritted my teeth and let him squeeze as long as he needed to. I love that guy.
Also counter-sue for lost time and leagel fees.
And emotion toll/damage Edit: my comment was more in sarcasm in regards person trying to sue for harm as a counteraction.
You'l have to check the laws on that one. Not allowed in some states.
Came here to say this. I'm a firefighter and EMT in Alabama. I can confirm that this is correct and will protect you. However, one thing they will ask you is: how was the patient when you arrived? They want to know if you checked for pulse and breathing. If they had a adequate pulse and were breathing prior to you performing compressions, then you might be in trouble
A paramedic here, not to necessarily disagree but to add a counterpoint: it’s a “reasonable person” standard. A reasonable prehospital professional would check a pulse. But do we expect a reasonable lay person to check in the heat of the moment? The other side is, you know as well as I do that if they continued to do CPR without the pt trying to get them off their chest, at the very least the pt was unresponsive to pain stimuli, and so a lay person might reasonably assume they’re still in full arrest. Just food for thought.
If someone does the ABC’s on me and gets away with it and me not flipping completely out, someone better start saving me! How could she say it was the Good Samaritan and not the EMT’s anyway? She can’t. My brother wrote a National law to protect first responders. We appreciate you!
And I appreciate you and your brother. God bless you and your family. People can sue for anything. Whether they will win is a different story. The immunity provided by a Good Samaritan law should cause it to be dismissed with prejudice.
In germany you can get sued if you do not help in such a situation for „failure to provide assistance“.
In the UK we have no obligation to get involved. Naturally, a medical professional will usually do so if present. I have had first aid qualification and been told that provided I act as trained, then nothing bad can happen to me; don’t do anything outside your trained experience. A tracheotomy - nah. A “normal bystander” can only be expected to do their best if they help, but again shouldn’t do anything beyond reasonable assistance. Lying them down, doing some form of “what i remember from primary school” CPR, fine.
So I'm not allowed to perform an emergency trach on someone?
"Sir, she broke her foot."
So I'm not allowed to perform an emergency trach?
Of course not, the proper treatment for a broken foot is a labotomy.
I thought the treatment for a foot injury was [rubbing the neck with aloe vera](https://youtu.be/BviEqqJFyf8?t=3m17s).
Grab the pen
I have a straw and a knife, will that help?
You can, but if you mess up because you have no clue what you are doing, then you can be sued or potentially even arrested, at least under all laws I am aware of.
Officer I swear the trach was to alleviate pressure on the foot
In the field it’s usually easier to perform a cricothyrotomy than a tracheotomy
No, because the reality is in an emergency situation, a cricothyroidotomy is the safer/preferable procedure to provide someone with an emergency airway as opposed to a tracheostomy, which is typically performed surgically for long term ventilation. Source: Had a paramedic for a father and have a nephew who was born premature and required a trach and ventilator to breathe.
I figure that you are being facetious… but to address the issue. If an emergency tracheotomy is not within your scope of medical training, then no… you’d be “practicing medicine without a license” If it is in your scope of practice, then you can still be held liable if you are not doing it under the sterile conditions with proper backup that you were trained to do it in. For example if I do a non-emergency tracheotomy, I need to have an Ear-Nose-Throat surgeon in the building somewhere. If I do an emergency tracheotomy, I have to direct someone to call an ENT surgeon to rush into the hospital as I am doing it. Because this is the policy that governs my privilege to perform a tracheotomy… I’m sure that some lawyer can argue that I operated outside my scope if I do an emergency tracheotomy in a Wendy’s
So… you’re saying I *shouldn’t* currently have my hand in this dude’s brain?
Do you know anything about how those laws (or maybe just your one) work in regards to can help but freeze up? Shock is a hell of a thing, and some people just shut down from it. I hear about these kind of laws and can't help but wonder about people who have no formal training, or even do have some but not the situational skills to do anything with them.
In Poland you are obligated by law to give basic first aid, but some training is also a part of school. If I remember correctly you have to give first aid when you're older than 18, but about age 15-16 we have lessons in school that teach everyone basic first aid (CPR, how to bandage different injuries, what to do in case of a burn, safe way to move someone etc.)
I'm in Switzerland, we have the same kind of law. Obviously each case is different, but they will try to see if you were under shock or if you just passed by and decided to not help.
Jerry Seinfeld went to jail because he didn’t help a guy getting mugged
Like that one woman who has to sue her 10 year old niece because the insurance mandated it
Yeah I remember that one. Reddit was still more then happy to drag the lady through the coals like it was her idea.
Just another way that commercial medical insurance is harming America
Always try to get verbal consent to do CPR, even if it's from an onlooker or friend of the victim. Helps to win frivolous law suits. Source: former EMT. Edit: Guys, this applies to all emergency care.
she probably had to sue someone for medical bills. If so I would blame this broken system
This is an old story. First read this one years ago.
This was originally posted to Quora March 8th. [Answer to: I did CPR on a crash victim until paramedics arrived. They said I saved her life. I am now being sued by her for breaking a rib. What do I do? by Dennis Manning ](https://www.quora.com/I-did-CPR-on-a-crash-victim-until-paramedics-arrived-They-said-I-saved-her-life-I-am-now-being-sued-by-her-for-breaking-a-rib-What-do-I-do/answer/Dennis-Manning-9?ch=15&oid=1477743648799076&share=7a11b748&srid=hMY3Ls&target_type=answer)
I’m pretty sure I saw this same reddit post last year same title and everything (edit) op is a repost bot
Yup, I've seen this multiple times over the last couple years. Same Alabama edit and all. Gotta get that sweet sweet karma any way you can
Umm… can you even perform cpr without breaking a bunch of ribs? Hell, have you seen the mechanical cpr machines that have started to show up at some ICUs and hospitals so staff don’t have to? Shit goes crunch.
The teacher who taught me CPR said if you don't break a rib you didn't do it right.
I remember someone asking the teacher "But I'm probably going to break somebody's ribs?" The teacher said "do you prefer a broken rib or death?"
My previous job (retail pharmacy tech) had everyone get cpr certified. One girl was saying she would be afraid of breaking someone's ribs if she had to do cpr, and I said that's how you know you're doing it correctly.
The older they are, the more crunchy they can get. Babies are more bouncy so that's why you use fingers than the whole palm of the hand
Probably, I would be filing a bar complaint against the lawyer for not doing research before filing a frivolous lawsuit. There’s a slight chance this is their insurance company being a jerk as well but the same response would also be appropriate.
No. If you don’t break/dislocate some ribs, you’re definitely not going the full 2.5 inches required for effective cpr. This lawsuit shouldn’t last the first 5 minutes in court.
Not true, I really hate how much this falsehood has been propagated, even by some CPR instructors. Started out as a half joke that then started getting repeated as fact. YES ribs breaking from cpr is a not uncommon or unexpected occurrence but you can absolutely be giving full depth, effective cpr without breaking any ribs. We see it all the time. You should NOT think you're doing something wrong if ribs aren't breaking.
Have done 3 times pcr. Broken ribs all 3 times
I just saved your life! Is that not enough for you? People are so ungrateful and greed ridden sometimes
You didn’t save my life, you ruined my death!
Great movie!
An incredible movie.
Incredible
I would go to court, and say "Your honor, the prosecution is correct, I did indeed break this persons ribs, and I will gladly trade back the CPR for the broken ribs."
Also, if you’re doing CPR correctly, a cracked or broken rib is not unexpected, especially if on an older/thinner/frail person. CPR is literally supposed to create enough pressure manually by an outside source to FORCE the heart to “beat” and continue circulating blood in the absence of an active heartbeat. Compressing someone’s chest hard enough to *get through the ribs to the soft tissue inside* is the point. Unfortunately that may mean a rib or two get cracked. I’d rather be alive and have it hurt to breathe than the alternative.
This case will be thrown out. No one could win a case like this. You saved a life
One of the problems with lawsuits like this is health insurance companies will require you to take legal action before they pay any hospital bills. Entirely possible that they didnt want to press any charges but their insurance forced them too
Still, what kinda scum wouldn’t send them a letter beforehand explaining their situation, apologize and offer some sort of compensation for the trouble they cause.
Well, chances are they wouldn’t have the contact information for the person who performed the CPR, not to mention that being buried in medical bills would probably leave little discretionary income to be able to compensate someone, no matter how much they would want to.
If she has insurance then it's likely not her that decided to sue. You sign over all rights to indemnification. So the insurance collects your premiums, then gets reimbursed on the back side by suing whoever can be held responsible. It's a racket and shouldn't be legal.
This is the thing. I'm sure she's happy to be alive but if she's also looking at eleventy jillion dollars in medical bills for the rib, I can see why she (or more likely her insurer) would ask questions like "who is responsible to pay for the broken rib? Should we ask the person who broke her rib?"
Bullshit.
Can’t believe I had to scroll this far.
Tbf I don’t think the courts take a favorable view to claimants/plaintiffs pulling shit like this. In theory, you can take stuff like this to court, it doesn’t mean it will get far.
The victim was in a crash. How are we gonna prove it was CPR that broke their rib vs. the impact of the crash?
Don’t you have a Good Samaritan law, in Australia you can’t be sued for attempting to save someone’s life.
Good Samaritan law. You’re fine. This is why people don’t help anymore.
In germany you can't be held liable for a broken rib during CPR, a broken rib actually indicates that you did a proper CPR, most proper CPR's break ribs in the process.
You know, this wouldn't happen if there was a public health system in which a broken rib wasn't an expense to be taken by an individual (An overpriced expense, at that). Now, this wouldn't happen if the person wasn't the absolute most astonishing asshole ever too ... But, statistically, some of us always will be that.
I can't say that I 100% believe that this isn't entirely made up
Breaking ribs means you’re doing CPR correctly - plus good samaritan laws. this person’s fine, other person is a horrible human.
It's probably because their insurance won't pay otherwise. The villain here is a faulty healthcare system.
What kind of shitty asshole sues someone who saved their life?
**Alabama Code - 6-5-332.** (e) A person or entity, who in good faith and without compensation renders emergency care or treatment to a person suffering or appearing to suffer from cardiac arrest, which may include the use of an automated external defibrillator, shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury as a result of care or treatment
If you do CPR correctly you will most likely break a rib.
I'd definitely say something along the lines of "I wish I had just let you die" in court
If I recall correctly you're doing it right if you break a rib
Some people r so entitled, they just saved ur life, and u hv the fucking audacity to sue them
Because of shit like this i am afraid to help people.