PASSED: Assistance Givers Protection

[Bergnovinaia]

Any comments are appreciated... the proposal can be found here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/new_proposal=4/council=1

Assitance Givers Protection

Category: Advancement of Industry
Strength: Tort Reform

The WA:

RECOGNIZES that in the event of an emergency, first responders and trained personnel typically handle the situation in attempt to save the person(s) in danger,

REALIZING that in certain instances, first responders may not immediately be on the scene of the emergency. Nonetheless, the emergency victims need immediate attention so passer-by step in to help,

DEFINES these passer-by as “Assistance Givers (AGs)”,

APPALLED that even after the AG’s attempt to help the emergency victims, occasionally the victims will file a civil suit against the AG’s, even if no harm was caused by the AG,

NOTES that it should be every nations right to determine if citizens can or cannot file civil suits against other citizens, organizations, or other establishments for certain reasons,

BELIEVES however, that protection against said lawsuits toward a AG should be implemented in those nations that allow civil suits,

MANDATES the following:
Article I:
1) Any AG who attempts to help an emergency victim in need shall be exempt from a civil suit towards them from the emergency victim, their family, or any person(s) or organization(s) that represent them provided the information in article 1, sections 2 and 3 are adhered to.
2) Any AG shall not attempt to help an emergency victim if a) They are unsure of what actually occurred in the situation at hand or b) Do not have proper training to perform any tasks that need to happen in order to help the emergency victim.
3) A AG forfeits this right if harm is caused to the emergency victim and if the emergency victim, or another other person(s) or organization(s) have viable proof that the harm was intentional.
Article II:
1) Any trained medical professional who arrives at the scene of an emergency by chance and is confident that they can in some way help an emergency victim is required to help the emergency victim to the best of their ability until other trained personnel arrive.
2) If this trained medical person does not have proper apparatus and is not confident that they can improvise, they are not required to help any emergency victim if the procedure could potentially harm them.
3) All of Article 1 applies to medical professionals who are not called to an emergency scene.
Article III
1a) Requires member states to provide basic education of certain situations and first aid to those who seek it;
1b) Allows for member states to implement mandatory basic education of certain situations and first aid training for citizens to partake in.
2)The content of these courses may be determined by the nation based on common emergency situations but the following are highly encouraged: treatment of open sore wounds (i.e. gunshots), CPR, treatment of infectious poisons, and how to operate life saving equipment.

[Poree]

I think the Mandates, as written, are too vague and open ended. You should spend some time and re-write them.

My suggestion is to take a look at what kinds of obligations a good samaritan should have and what restrictions should there be. Is there a point where they must have training in order to be protected?

This is a good start but needs quite a bit more for us to think about supporting it.

[Bergnovinaia]

I think the Mandates, as written, are too vague and open ended. You should spend some time and re-write them.

My suggestion is to take a look at what kinds of obligations a good samaritan should have and what restrictions should there be. Is there a point where they must have training in order to be protected?

This is a good start but needs quite a bit more for us to think about supporting it.

While I agree, vague is the name of the game in the WA becaue if you get to specific it flips people out.

[Zeyad]

That being said though, Laws can be the most tightly packed piece of literature you'll ever read. Most open ended laws can get taken advantage of.

[Poree]

I think the Mandates, as written, are too vague and open ended. You should spend some time and re-write them.

My suggestion is to take a look at what kinds of obligations a good samaritan should have and what restrictions should there be. Is there a point where they must have training in order to be protected?

This is a good start but needs quite a bit more for us to think about supporting it.

While I agree, vague is the name of the game in the WA becaue if you get to specific it flips people out.

Sadly then, we will not be able to support this proposal.

[Bergnovinaia]

So any specific suggestions for change, not just "it's too vague..."?

[Bergnovinaia]

bump

[Serrland]

APPALED that even after the GS’s attempt to help the emergency victims, occasionally the victims will file a civil suit against the GS’s, even if no harm was caused by the GS,

NOTES that it should be every citizens right to file civil suits against other citizens, organizations, or other establishments for certain reasons,

BELIEVES however, that protection against said lawsuits toward a GS should be implemented,

Serrland agrees strongly with the need to protect against frivolous lawsuits, but believes that it is a domestic matter. While Serrland usually isn't usually a proponent of the "slippery slope" fallacy, the delegation is somewhat concerned that this will set an unfortunate precedent that the WA can interfere in domestic lawsuit matters, which Serrland strongly opposes.

[Bergnovinaia]

APPALED that even after the GS’s attempt to help the emergency victims, occasionally the victims will file a civil suit against the GS’s, even if no harm was caused by the GS,

NOTES that it should be every citizens right to file civil suits against other citizens, organizations, or other establishments for certain reasons,

BELIEVES however, that protection against said lawsuits toward a GS should be implemented,

Serrland agrees strongly with the need to protect against frivolous lawsuits, but believes that it is a domestic matter. While Serrland usually isn't usually a proponent of the "slippery slope" fallacy, the delegation is somewhat concerned that this will set an unfortunate precedent that the WA can interfere in domestic lawsuit matters, which Serrland strongly opposes.

Isn't what you just said a huge contradiction...?

[American MapleStory]

I would vote Nay on this issue. There is no regulation or anything. Too Open its like the 1962 Civil Rights Act of Public Accommodation.

[Bergnovinaia]

I would vote Nay on this issue. There is no regulation or anything. Too Open its like the 1962 Civil Rights Act of Public Accommodation.

What needs to be regulated... the legal system? All this is trying to do is prevent lawsuits against good samaritans.

[Freeoplis]

We agree with the ethos of such a proposal.

[South Wienda]

I would support it, but it needs some other word besides "Good Samaritan". A less vague one, because a Good Samaritan could also be the one who volunteers at the soup kitchen, etc. etc.

[New Rockport]

This looks like tort reform rather than moral decency.

[Bergnovinaia]

I would support it, but it needs some other word besides "Good Samaritan". A less vague one, because a Good Samaritan could also be the one who volunteers at the soup kitchen, etc. etc.

Well, I agree, but I really don't know what to call them...

[Ifsenwich]

The phrase Good Samaritan is mis-used. Unless the only helpers are intended to be hated foreigners.

[American MapleStory]

I would vote Nay on this issue. There is no regulation or anything. Too Open its like the 1962 Civil Rights Act of Public Accommodation.

What needs to be regulated... the legal system? All this is trying to do is prevent lawsuits against good samaritans.

There has to be a way of addressing and distinguishing good samaritans and suspects. Under some situations it is very difficult to determine. The defense in the criminal courts could use this to their advantage in the second and third degree cases. This is what I mean by abuse.

[Poree]

I would vote Nay on this issue. There is no regulation or anything. Too Open its like the 1962 Civil Rights Act of Public Accommodation.

What needs to be regulated... the legal system? All this is trying to do is prevent lawsuits against good samaritans.

There has to be a way of addressing and distinguishing good samaritans and suspects. Under some situations it is very difficult to determine. The defense in the criminal courts could use this to their advantage in the second and third degree cases. This is what I mean by abuse.

OC: This is why RL good samaritan laws are always tied to emergency/medical training and intent. The more training you have the more obligation the law gives you to help in exchange for limited liability. Also in order to sue they have to show your intent was negative otherwise the intent is always assumed to be posative. The way this act is written it means anyone can do more harm then good and be exempted regardless of their intent.

[Bergnovinaia]

I would vote Nay on this issue. There is no regulation or anything. Too Open its like the 1962 Civil Rights Act of Public Accommodation.

What needs to be regulated... the legal system? All this is trying to do is prevent lawsuits against good samaritans.

There has to be a way of addressing and distinguishing good samaritans and suspects. Under some situations it is very difficult to determine. The defense in the criminal courts could use this to their advantage in the second and third degree cases. This is what I mean by abuse.

OC: This is why RL good samaritan laws are always tied to emergency/medical training and intent. The more training you have the more obligation the law gives you to help in exchange for limited liability. Also in order to sue they have to show your intent was negative otherwise the intent is always assumed to be posative. The way this act is written it means anyone can do more harm then good and be exempted regardless of their intent.

You're correct... although, usually the good samaritans have good intent, unless they are the rare, sadistic person who wants to inflict more harm to a person who could potentially have life-threatening injuries. It's the person who's injured who typically sues, because they're assholes. It's as simple as that.

[Enn]

You're correct... although, usually the good samaritans have good intent, unless they are the rare, sadistic person who wants to inflict more harm to a person who could potentially have life-threatening injuries.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I don't see why someone, trying to do good, is automatically exempt from prosecution if they make matters worse.

It's the person who's injured who typically sues, because they're assholes. It's as simple as that.

Or, potentially, because they are significantly worse off than they otherwise would have been.

Stephanie Fulton, of Enn

[Poree]

You're correct... although, usually the good samaritans have good intent, unless they are the rare, sadistic person who wants to inflict more harm to a person who could potentially have life-threatening injuries. It's the person who's injured who typically sues, because they're assholes. It's as simple as that.

Sadly no, it is clear you and I are not communiating. The key is that just because someone wants to help does not mean they should. If I do not have emergency medical training I could cause more hardm then good. what you do not undestand is that the intent is not applied until after the correct amount of training for the situation has been met. So if I have CPR traing and try to save someone who stopped brething tand they die anyway then the family would have to prove I had ill intent to sue me. But if I lacked that traing then regardless of my intent I could be sued because I did not know what I was doing. Does that make more sense? Right now, I could operate on someone and the fact I am not a doctor does not matter. I am covered by this proposal as written.

[Bergnovinaia]

You're correct... although, usually the good samaritans have good intent, unless they are the rare, sadistic person who wants to inflict more harm to a person who could potentially have life-threatening injuries. It's the person who's injured who typically sues, because they're assholes. It's as simple as that.

Sadly no, it is clear you and I are not communiating. The key is that just because someone wants to help does not mean they should. If I do not have emergency medical training I could cause more hardm then good. what you do not undestand is that the intent is not applied until after the correct amount of training for the situation has been met. So if I have CPR traing and try to save someone who stopped brething tand they die anyway then the family would have to prove I had ill intent to sue me. But if I lacked that traing then regardless of my intent I could be sued because I did not know what I was doing. Does that make more sense? Right now, I could operate on someone and the fact I am not a doctor does not matter. I am covered by this proposal as written.

So perhaps a clausing saying essentially that "no GS shall help beyond their A)knowledge of what's actually occuring in the situation and B) their training" would be beneficial to the bill... (worded differently though).

[Poree]

So perhaps a clausing saying essentially that "no GS shall help beyond their A)knowledge of what's actually occuring in the situation and B) their training" would be beneficial to the bill... (worded differently though).

I would like to see something like that. I think it would hlp draw some responsability for the GS and yet also help them feel protected within their ability levels.

[Bergnovinaia]

O, slightly edited. Tell me if it needs to be changed because my allergies are up which doesn't allow me to think really.

[Ashterotopia]

In the Part of The bill which States "their family, or any person(s) or organization(s) that represent them provided the information in section 2 is adhered to." I would make the following changes.. "them provided the information in section 2 and 3 is adhered to." The Current Draft Leaves out Section 3 of the Mandate which Covers Injury If found to be intentional.

Also the part "3) A GS forfeits this right if harm is caused to the emergency victim and the emergency victim This part is Needs an "And if" it is a bit confusing the way it is written now.