Sue rescuers for $500,000?

[Sam_2.0]

www.kshb.com/news/local-news/man-rescued-during-september-floods-facing-backlash-for-potential-lawsuit

Suing for $500,000, because first responders didn't initially see him in his truck. In his truck that was in muddy swirling flood waters. And they did find him still alive awhile later and got him out. It's not like they walked away from the truck completely and left him there for days.

Things like this make me stabby.

[tskeeter]

Another spin of the wheel at the litigation lottery.

I am amazed at the logic that is being used in this case.  It is OK for the plaintiff to have driven into the area where the road was washed out because the road hadn't been closed or the wash out marked.  Then other two drivers, whose cars pushed the plaintiff's further into the water, it wasn't OK.

And it's all about the bills the plaintiff needs to pay.  I noticed that there is no mention that the bills were related to this incident.  While I suspect some of the bills might have been related to treatment for hypothermia that resultede from being in the water, I can't imagine hot water bottles, a blanket, and maybe an ambulance ride and once over at the ER add up to the $40K this guy claims to have in bills he is unable to pay.  Kind of looks like he might have been in financial trouble before the accident, and this was the fortunate accident that is going to solve all of his problems for him.   

[HoneyBBQ]

Oh man. There are just no words.

[Tennesseer]

The guy is an idiot for not remembering 'Turn Around, Don't Drown' regarding moving water over roads.

[Deleted]

guess this is a warning to rescuers in the future to just leave the idiots there

[kent]

Roy and his attorney are BOTH a couple of [fill in the blank] and should be held responsible for every penny spent addressing this situation- jerks!

[tskeeter]

Mar 10, 2014 11:28:13 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

guess this is a warning to rescuers in the future to just leave the idiots there

Sounds like the logger who was having a heavy pipe guard installed on the front of his pulp truck.  He said that he'd been run off the road so many times by inattentive tourists in pasenger vehicles that his insurance was about to be cancelled.  His comment - I guess the next one who isn't paying attention is going to die.  But I won't be in the ditch with a tipped over truck again.

[The Captain]

Actually you need to read the article in it's entirety.

The guy's brother was there, he told the resucers he was alive and in the car, and they treated it like a salvage operation rather than a rescue operation.  He was in the water for over two hours and IS lucky he didn't die.

Ortiz’s brother, Pedro Ortiz, was on the scene moments after Ortiz’s car plunged into the creek.

“And I'm talking to the rescuers and I say, ‘You're losing time, you gotta do something,’” he said. “They didn’t do anything to try and save his life. I talked to the tow truck guy who talked to the rescuers and he said, ‘two are safe, one has died.’”

The money is for treatment since the incident, and he claims he still has trouble.  With two hours trapped in cold water after an accident I can believe it.

I'm one of the last to support the litigation lottery, but it sounds like this guy has a case.

[The Captain]

@sroo4 - The article is poorly written.

My understanding is there were three cars involved in the incident.  One that went off the road into the water and two more that basically couldn't stop in time and pushed the first car either into the water or deeper into the water.

The plaintiff's car was flipped over so it appears the rescue team assumed the occupant was dead.  They focused on getting the other two "alive" drivers out of their cars and treated his car as a salvage rather than a rescue.

"Ferszt says this is just the first step. He said they are also in the process of filing claims with the insurance companies of the two drivers who hit the wash out after Ortiz, pushing his vehicle further into danger"

[happyhoix]

I think the litigation would hinge around how feasible it was for the rescuers to get to his car and pull him out, and whether they had certain knowledge he was still alive.

Rescuers are supposed to rescue people, but they are also not supposed to risk their own lives doing it.

I'm not an expert but I think the courts can divide up blame, so that 50% of the blame might be with the driver, for going into the water to begin with, and the other 50% shared by the two cars that pushed him further in and the rescuers, if it can be proved they could have safely gotten to him faster.

[Deleted]

Stupidity like this will be the end of any rescue services. I love the part where he sues the other drivers that hit the same wash out and pushed his car further into danger. He didn't see it but everyone else should?

I hope the fire department or county fights and refuses to settle.

[973beachbum]

While I can understand not seeing the washout.  I have been on roads that looked slightly wet that were actually flooded and I didn't know that just by looking.  I have never failed to see an actual car stopped in the middle of the road though.  Aren't you supposed to slow down when you see a stopped car?  I must have been doing it wrong all these years.

The end of the article is scary to read.  The only reason he was saved was they heard his pounding and screaming as they hooked his car to the tow truck, to pull it out of the water.