next time - let the guy drown

Martin Enterprises wrote: Obama will save his ass.

How?

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Martin Enterprises wrote: Obama will save his ass.

How?

Meh

So the lawyer filed an additional suit to avoid missing a deadline and being sued himself?

In my opinion, everybody, from the time they are old enough to sign their name, should have to sign a lifetime waiver that states they will not and can not try to sue someone who risks their ass to save yours... PERIOD. Unless I'm running down the street on fire and some dbag attempts to put the fire out with a 2x4 or a bottle of Jack, I think most cases should be exempt from lawsuits.

Is there anything left that we can't be sued for?

In Utopia maybe but in the real world there are those who exceed or fail to do what is reasonable whether a first responder or someone else. Failing to find someone for 2 hours, abandoning him clearly says something went wrong. Now it is up to the courts/jurors to decide if his claim is valid. So why all the ruckus about his filing through his attorney what is his to rightfully file?

And I have to agree ColoradoKathy the attorney could have said it better in his interview with Gretchen and he was getting to it but Gretchen cut him off and failed to give him an opportunity to give their side. Perhaps a lot would have been cleared up if Gretchen and Fox News weren't busy with their own agenda.

Rick wrote: In my opinion, everybody, from the time they are old enough to sign their name, should have to sign a lifetime waiver that states they will not and can not try to sue someone who risks their ass to save yours... PERIOD. Unless I'm running down the street on fire and some dbag attempts to put the fire out with a 2x4 or a bottle of Jack, I think most cases should be exempt from lawsuits.

Is there anything left that we can't be sued for?

Blondie wrote: Meh

So the lawyer filed an additional suit to avoid missing a deadline and being sued himself?

He mailed out a notice required by Colorado law (24-10-109) to be issued within 180 days of loss to protect the right to file a suit later, and yes to your second question.

A party has to mitigate and share damages by considering everybody who may be at fault, whether they philosophically agree they should be in there or not. You can't tell a jury that you didn't include Suzy Q after Nancy said your problems were mainly her fault, on the basis that Suzy Q is a really good person, your best friend, or a first responder to whom you're forever grateful for saving your life.

This particular plaintiff seems to be getting sort of pulled along by the process. It's a little unclear how much of a language barrier exists, and the interviewer should have been bilingual or an interpreter provided so he could have been more present. However, please let me point out as a general concept that someone who proceeds against Person A is more likely to also proceed against Persons B, C and D.

In any event, the statutory deadlines of the process pull one along. Nobody knows that better than SC ~ the creature has a life all its own. It's very much like a Chevy Chase road trip, by the time you reach the end you're so nauseous that you just want it to stop, while the gas station and donut people have had a wonderful time on your money.

The purpose of the governmental immunity act is to limit and restrict claims that can be made against the government. While you and I can be sued for X, the government can only be sued for Y -- against all other claims and above specified amounts, it is immune under statute. The first of the hurdles is meeting the short leash on the notice, which gives the government an early alert that it may be sued ahead, and many are the attorneys who have deeply regretted missing that date.

It's the lawyer's job to know the deadline exists and that the potential for running into it exists, that's what should have come through in the interview imho, along with the fact that the man probably did not call the attorney to say Hey! I just thought of something! Let's go after the first responders!! instead, I'll bet the issue was raised by the other driver...or that's what was suggested to me anyway, in the opening dialogue where the attorney started to talk about "counterclaims" and sort of got cut off.