9/30 Question for the Motd: If you see someone being held up by someone
with a gun, and you attempt to help that person (aka attacking thier
attacker, grabbing the gun, throwing something at the attacker etc).
If the person gets shot, can they sue you for negligence? If the
person dies, can you be charged criminally with murder, what about
civilly? This was bugging me as I was thinking about it the other
day on my way home. -mrauser
\_ Answers:
1) Yes, anyone can find a sleazy plaintiff's attorney to sue for
just about anything, including negligence. This is assuming
that you as the Good Samaritan have deep pockets, or an insurer
steps in to foot the bill. But they'll lose on this one.
2) Very little likelihood of any criminal charges against you. In
California, we have the felony-murder rule, which means that if
a criminal is in the act of committing a felony (like an armed
robbery), and a victim gets killed during that felony, then that
criminal is responsible for both the felony (here, armed robbery)
and murder. So as the Good Samaritan, you generally will not be
charged with murder or any of its lesser variants (like negligent
homicide, aka involuntary manslaughter), but the criminal can and
will get charged with both armed robbery and murder.
3) Yes, anyone can find a sleazy plaintiff's attorney to sue for
just about anything, inluding wrongful death. This is assuming
that you as the Good Samaritan have deep pockets, or an insurer
steps in to foot the bill. But they'll lose on this one.
--richard
\_ If the person getting killed as a result of your failed heroic
attempt is a normal citizen, then you'd be ok. If however that
person is famous, is connected to a wealthy family (16-year old
girl whos dad is well connected), has enough money to buy the
Dream Team, so on and so forth, then yes they can sue your ass
and you'd be totally fucked.
\_ I imagine that they could sue you. You can sue for just about
anything in this country - it's part of what makes America great.
That's not saying that you will win, of course. Why were you
thinking about it? Those sorts of heroics are almost always a
Really Bad Idea (tm).
\_ 1) pp is correct that a) anyone can sue or 2) anyone can bring
criminal charges against you and that the real question is "can
these charges/suits be pursued successfully" and that 2) this
sort of thing is usually ill-advised. But, the law permits
one to protect oneself against threats to life/limb when there
is no opportunity to escape (other states dont have the "must
take opportunity to escape" condition), and allows that right
to be extended to loved ones, family, and even bystanders in
certain cases. An almost as big question is "did you take
reasonable action?" If you have reasonable belief that you
have time to call the police so that they will arrive in time
to be of use, and you just charge in, you have a problem. The
general criteria for "reasonable action" consists of training,
ability, safety of others. You are clearly acting with a
reasonable expectation that your action will increase the
safety of others, but are you trained/able/equipped to deal
with this in a way that will not unreasonably exacerbate the
situation beyond what would otherwise happen? And if we're
talking about the assailant getting hurt, they lose any legal
recourse for injury/loss sustained while they commit a felony.
\_ You mean if somebody robs me and I throw a brick at their
head as they are leaving they cannot sue me?
\_ No. At that point you're no longer in danger.
\_ Civil negligence requires the following four elements to exist:
1. Duty: Does the defendant owe duty of care to the plaintiff?
2. Breach: Was that duty breached?
3. Cause: a. Actual: "But for the breach..." and also
b. Proximate: Was the injury reasonably foreseeable?
4. Injury: Was the plaintiff injured as a result?
I think this would be a hard case for the plaintiff to win. --dim
\_ Re Negligence: dim is correct re the elements. The question
really is then, did you breach your duty of
reasonable care under the circumstances? Maybe,
maybe not - it really depends on the facts. [I
do not really think causation is a big problem
here, b/c it is reasonably foreseeable that an
attacking an armed assailant can cause the gun
to go off.
Re Murder: Doubtful that you would be charged for murder. The
armed robber was the murder. Probably in CA he would
be charged w/ 1st degree murder b/c he was committing
a enumerated felony. You might be considered an acco-
mplice to his murder, but it is doubtful unless you
acted recklessly (ie didn't really take into account
the effect of your actions).
If charged as an accomplice, you really only have one
defense open to you - defense of others. But this is
a sketchy defense b/c it doesn't apply if the person
who was being held up wasn't really in danger.
Re Wrongful Death: Similar to negligence. Probably hard to win
unless they can show that you acted w/o
regard for the consequences of your actions.
[ I could have some of the details wrong b/c it has been 2 yrs
since I took these courses and I haven't refreshed for the
bar yet ]
\_ California has a 'good samaritan' law to cover situations like this.
\_ No, it doesn't. Just ask David Cash, one of the more infamous
undergraduate students to attend UC Berkeley in recent years.
If you are too young or too old to remember who he is, just
google "Jeremy Strohmeyer Sherrice Iverson David Cash". |