That could quickly backfire should it turn out you decided to drive someone to the hospital yourself in spite of having been found not to be trusted with steering a vehicle, and not having called professional help and first-aid on-the-spot, i.e. called the ambulance as you should have done. Assault / injury and failure to render assistance are the terms here.
This is such a wild edge case though. So we think the vehicle should do what, keep driving, potentially causing more damage?
It's highly situation specific, and I'd expect the emergency personal to make the judgement call on how to free the person (potentially by taking control of the vehicle, or other means).
Excellent question. And what if the other party, at fault or not, is not a driver? What if they are a pedestrian or a cyclist? What if they are alone, incapacitated and need medical help?
100% fair point. I was thinking the other way: when you accidentally ran into my car, the fact that you didn't mean to do it doesn't excuse you from liability for the damage to my car (even if you had a medical emergency).
You're absolutely right that overt intentional assault is different than an accidental collision.
If you're involved in a motor accident where someone has been hurt, it's a criminal offence to drive away. There would have been a lot more admin for the police officer to do.
The first example is someone running a red light with "good reason", e.g., taking a patient to a hospital, and how if "Alice" knew this she would not consider the "runner" a reckless driver.
Bollocks.
Never drive in haste. Ever. Unless you are trained driver of an emergency vehicle operating under emergency conditions.
Otherwise you are being a reckless idiot and endangering others.
Alice is right to conclude the other person is reckless. Distracted by an emergency perhaps, but reckless nevertheless. (Trained responders are trained first to not put themselves in danger: The "runner" was in the business of creating more victims....)
tough to be you when you're trying to get to hospital with a wounded person and the governor kicks in.
There is no substitute for human judgment. If you can't play by the rules you should lose your license, everybody else should be in full control of their cars and be held fully responsible in case they abuse their power.
The only way I'd have peace with this is if it came with an 'override' button and all I'd have to do is give a valid explanation for the use of it (or pay a hefty fine).
Yeah, that's not how it goes. If it does go that way (some people for example might have mental issues and go into the street, or be disoriented etc), it's not usually held up to the driver if they are hit, except if it's shown that they could have realistically prevented it.
>While in emergency mode, the driver of the emergency vehicle is -presumptively liable- for ANY incident that occurs, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise (and even then there is still likely to be contributory liability). This liability is personal and organizational (i.e. I can be personally sued if I hit someone in my ambulance, even going code 3).
I think you are mistaken. Please cite your sources.
Drivers of emergency vehicles must exercise due regard, but as long as they meet that standard, AFAIK they are not liable for accidents they cause while operating with lights and siren, when lights and siren are warranted.
For example, CA Vehicle Code section 17004 provides: “A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”
There is an exception to the rule: California Vehicle Code 21056 states that CVC 17004 and CVC 21055, “does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted in that section.”
The law may be different in other states, but I doubt that your statement of the law is true in any U.S. state. Very curious to learn if I am wrong about that.
Let's put aside the "who's paying for the ER" argument. A driver that loses control of the car trying to brace oneself or restrain a passenger that isn't wearing a seat belt can increase the severity of an accident for other people, too. A car crash victim that falls on to the street suddenly becomes a hazard to other vehicles, too.
It's not trivial, dunno about US, but in many (developed) countries around world not providing help to someone (passing around car crash without stopping, if you don't see anyone providing help) has legal implications.
reply