# Not the call you want to get



## Core Lokt (Jan 24, 2017)

I’m posting this story with hopes that people will read it and make wise decisions when the weather is bad and they want to hunt or fish. Later this same day the weather was still very bad I ran into 2 kids on my road (there is a landing on my road) heading to the lake with a small duck boat. I stopped them, told them what had happened and asked them to go home but they said “we’ll be alright” and continued on. An hour later I saw them come back by the house, I felt better. 

 So I met my hunting partner at the lake this past Sunday morning planning to go duck hunting. It only took a few minutes to decide that we needed to call the hunt off and go back home. Before we left 2 young boys pulled up and I recognized one of them being a friend of mines soon to be step son. We told them that they did not need to go hunting because the radar showed some nasty stuff on the way. They said that they would be ok and once again we asked that they did not go. “We’ll be fine” they said and one of the boys put on waders. Never wear waders when hunting from a boat, they can kill you and we told the boy that.

 They continued to the boat and we left. I mean we couldn’t force them to go home but we did our best. Having not slept in for several months I got back in bed and was sleeping good when my phone rang at 8:30. I got up and didn’t recognize the number. I answered the call to hear a woman on the other end and she said “is this Tommy?” I said yes it is and she told me who she was and that her son had flipped the boat on the lake and as she started to cry saying “please go find them”. My heart dropped…… All she could tell me is that they could see the boat ramp. There are 4 ramps on the lake and the lake is 6,500 ac +/-. I rush to get dressed and called my friend that I had just left. He answered and I asked what he was doing. He said “Man, I’ve been sitting on the back porch watching this weather praying for those boys that we talked to.” I told him that their boat had capsized and to meet me at my boat. 

 My boat was on the water in a boat stall 10 minutes from my house. On the way the rain was so hard, debris blowing sideways I was not sure that we could get out there. I started praying, “Lord, please help us find those boys alive and keep us safe” over and over. When we got to my boat there were two other guys debating on going out. We told them what was going on and the search started. At that moment the wind and rain stopped… One Prayer answered! We made it a ¼ mile and spotted the boys waving at us standing on the flipped over boat. Second prayer answered!! The waders filled up on the boy that had them on and he was barely able to get them off. He also got tangled up under boat but thankfully was able to get free and head above water.

 We got them in my boat and soon after the other guys showed up with a sheriff deputy with them. The ramp was filling with sirens and first responders. The deputy reported that they were found and safe so we put them in the boat with them and I called the boy’s mother to tell her they were safe. We started towing the flipped boat. It was a slow tow but we got it back to the ramp, turned it upright and pulled the plug to drain. The lady that called me was there and she was glad to see her boy!! They lost their guns, motor and a cell phone but those things can be replaced.

 I have never done anything like that before and I tell you we were running on pure adrenalin and the Good Lord wrapped His hands of safety around all of us. I truly believe that. As soon as we got back to shore the rain and winds picked right back up as they were before we left. 

 I'm not asking for atta boys. This really got my attention and scared me. I just want people to make wiser decisions including myself when on the water or trying to get on the water. I see so many young guys out there making decisions that could kill them. I guess wisdom comes with age, if you make it to get older... I shake my head at some of the things I did when younger. I guess there will always be "bullet proof young people" but man...


----------



## Dustin Pate (Jan 24, 2017)

Very scary. No duck is worth your life, plain and simple. By chance, were they wearing a life vest?


----------



## Milkman (Jan 24, 2017)

We were all young and dumb at some point.  Thankfully those boys will live to say it about themselves. 

Kudos to you and your pal for your help and advice to them.


----------



## Core Lokt (Jan 24, 2017)

Not wearing life vest.


----------



## Curtis-UGA (Jan 24, 2017)

Great story to share. Eye opening for sure!


----------



## andyparm (Jan 24, 2017)

Just told someone in a PM that if there's one piece of advice I can give no matter your boating situation: ALWAYS WEAR A LIFE JACKET AND KNOW THE WEATHER. Glad these guys made it.


----------



## rnelson5 (Jan 24, 2017)

Not trying to start a debate on this thread, but neoprene will float assuming they were wearing neoprene waders. Either way happy to hear they made it out.


----------



## Chewbaka81 (Jan 24, 2017)

Not the call you want to get, but sounds like you answered it nobly. Great job!


----------



## Core Lokt (Jan 24, 2017)

rnelson5 said:


> Not trying to start a debate on this thread, but neoprene will float assuming they were wearing neoprene waders. Either way happy to hear they made it out.



Old school bulky rubber waders. They weren't floating. 

we had 4 boats out today dragging magnets and prodding with push poles and no luck. I will try again tomorrow after I hunt.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 24, 2017)

Good post, and hopefully some of the younguns on here will read it. We were all invincible once, but lived to learn there really are angels watching over us sometimes. 

Good job on the rescue.


----------



## rnelson5 (Jan 24, 2017)

Core Lokt said:


> Old school bulky rubber waders. They weren't floating.
> 
> we had 4 boats out today dragging magnets and prodding with push poles and no luck. I will try again tomorrow after I hunt.



Ya.... those don't float like neoprene


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 25, 2017)

I posted this as a reply on another site we share membership on.  I only post this because I don't want someone to read your post and get too gun ho.

The Lord obviously had his hand in this rescue for all involved, including the rescuers!

Don't want to rain on the parade, however, you violated the 1st rule of rescue. You put yourself and your friend in a situation where you could have added to the body count. I don't know what size boat you have, but it seems you considered it inadequate when you scrubbed your trip and that didn't change when you went to rescue. You were blessed by the winds dropping. I scrubbed a hunt that morning as well and was sitting on my back deck watching the winds go up and down with some gusts exceeding 50mph. 

When that mother called, your next move should have been to call 911 and you could offer to meet those professionals at the Lake and share what you saw and what you know. They should have equipment and skill to make a rescue effort, if one was possible. Also, if they determined you could and should help. they lay out a grid with you so that they can find you if you don't come back at the appointed time.

I know this because I was about to launch to enter a search at Keaton Beach many years back with what I knew to be an adequate boat and the FWC coordinator stopped myself and two others getting ready to launch. He gave us an extensive lecture (cussin' out). They turned the two guys with open console boats around and sent them home. They allowed me to take a FWC officer with me to an assigned grid. He showed me the weather grid they had from the navy and the searchable times per winds and waves. During our assigned search time, he went on and on about how many folks either got themselves killed or created more trouble for professionals when they to got in trouble being heros during a search and rescue. 

So while I'm thankful for the outcome, depending upon luck is dangerous.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 25, 2017)

MudDucker said:


> I posted this as a reply on another site we share membership on.  I only post this because I don't want someone to read your post and get too gun ho.
> 
> The Lord obviously had his hand in this rescue for all involved, including the rescuers!
> 
> ...



Kudos to you core lokt for getting out there and making something happen and risking your own safety for someone else.

But to add to the previous post, my buddy who is a lawyer informed me recently while hunting some rough weather and speculating on what we would be able to do if someone needed help that morning...that if you attempt to rescue someone and they get hurt or die during the rescue you can also be held liable for injury or death.


----------



## Chewbaka81 (Jan 25, 2017)

The other side to the argument is if you don't go, the boys don't survive, you have to live with the fact you were asked to help and you didn't and they died.  Is it ok to say no when you are asked for help?  I think the answer is yes, but the reasoning behind the answer has to be something that each individual person weighs out.  Is it worth my life?  Is law enforcement/rescue already handling the situation? Is it worth me being disabled?  If something happened to me what would happen to my wife, kids, etc?  Am I physically able to help?  If something goes wrong and I get sued, was trying to help worth losing my possessions?  Do I know what to do to help?  The questions are endless and the possible situations are too.  None of us ever know when an emergency will strike or what the situation will be, however, I think most us would benefit from thinking over these type of questions ahead of time.


----------



## Dustin Pate (Jan 25, 2017)

Core Lokt said:


> Not wearing life vest.



Sadly, I assumed they didn't. I really don't understand this. I see it every weekend at the ramp. Probably 80% of the hunters don't have a life jacket on. A life jacket is no good if it isn't on you. A camo life jacket is $29.00 on Amazon. Pretty cheap insurance in my opinion.


----------



## BigSwole (Jan 25, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> Kudos to you core lokt for getting out there and making something happen and risking your own safety for someone else.
> 
> But to add to the previous post, my buddy who is a lawyer informed me recently while hunting some rough weather and speculating on what we would be able to do if someone needed help that morning...that if you attempt to rescue someone and they get hurt or die during the rescue you can also be held liable for injury or death.



There is also this thing called "the good Samaritan act"

Have him research it.


----------



## BigSwole (Jan 25, 2017)

Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated.[1] The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. An example of such a law in common-law areas of Canada: a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment.[2] By contrast, a duty to rescue law requires people to offer assistance, and holds those who fail to do so liable.


And I'm not even a lawyer


----------



## Core Lokt (Jan 25, 2017)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 25, 2017)

In my time i have been involved with four boat accidents. Three the boat sank and one we bailed the boat and got it floating. That was the one when DRBugman drug Bruce carter and myself back to The fish camp lift on The Altamaha. 
Folks Duck hunting aint Nothing to play with. Please use your brain. As Dustin said aint no duck worth your life. Big water is nothing to play with and you can get killed in flooded timber to. Flooded timber all looks the same if you dont know your way out and Big water can get  so ruff a small duck boat can not take it. You only have one life. The water is deep and the water is wide.
Core lokt should be comended


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 25, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> Kudos to you core lokt for getting out there and making something happen and risking your own safety for someone else.
> 
> But to add to the previous post, my buddy who is a lawyer informed me recently while hunting some rough weather and speculating on what we would be able to do if someone needed help that morning...that if you attempt to rescue someone and they get hurt or die during the rescue you can also be held liable for injury or death.



Not true in Georgia where we have the good Samaritan law.  If you are trying to help, you are not liable unless you intentionally do someone harm.


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 25, 2017)

Chewbaka81 said:


> The other side to the argument is if you don't go, the boys don't survive, you have to live with the fact you were asked to help and you didn't and they died.  Is it ok to say no when you are asked for help?  I think the answer is yes, but the reasoning behind the answer has to be something that each individual person weighs out.  Is it worth my life?  Is law enforcement/rescue already handling the situation? Is it worth me being disabled?  If something happened to me what would happen to my wife, kids, etc?  Am I physically able to help?  If something goes wrong and I get sued, was trying to help worth losing my possessions?  Do I know what to do to help?  The questions are endless and the possible situations are too.  None of us ever know when an emergency will strike or what the situation will be, however, I think most us would benefit from thinking over these type of questions ahead of time.



I agree, it is a tough call.  I stand by what I said though.  The first call is to 911 to see what is available from professionals.  If they aren't available in time, then and only then, should you go yourself in an iffy situation.  Last weekend was iffy to the max all weekend down here.


----------



## mattech (Jan 25, 2017)

Crazy story, I know those kids are grateful for your help, and will hopefully think the next time they go out in bad weather.


----------



## WOODIE13 (Jan 25, 2017)

Know your limitations and follow with risk reduction...


----------



## king george (Jan 26, 2017)

God bless You All!!


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 26, 2017)

MudDucker said:


> Not true in Georgia where we have the good Samaritan law.  If you are trying to help, you are not liable unless you intentionally do someone harm.



Not true what you just said.


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 26, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> Not true what you just said.



Excuse me, but it is true.  How about you show me otherwise!

O.C.G.A. 51-1-29: Liability of persons rendering emergency care, this law says: “Any person, including any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 and including any person licensed to render services ancillary thereto, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim or victims thereof without making any charge therefor shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.”


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 26, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> Not true what you just said.


Explain?


----------



## mattech (Jan 26, 2017)

Personally I don't care about the law. If I feel I can do something to save someone's life, I will do it. If I get sued and loose everything, atleast I will know I did the right thing.


----------



## BigSwole (Jan 26, 2017)

MudDucker said:


> Excuse me, but it is true.  How about you show me otherwise!
> 
> O.C.G.A. 51-1-29: Liability of persons rendering emergency care, this law says: “Any person, including any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 and including any person licensed to render services ancillary thereto, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim or victims thereof without making any charge therefor shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.”




Yeah this is what I was referencing I just wasn't going to look harder the 1st quote from Google lol.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 26, 2017)

Most of us have not been to Law school. Some folks have.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 26, 2017)

MudDucker said:


> Excuse me, but it is true.  How about you show me otherwise!
> 
> O.C.G.A. 51-1-29: Liability of persons rendering emergency care, this law says: “Any person, including any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 and including any person licensed to render services ancillary thereto, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim or victims thereof without making any charge therefor shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.”



If I could post a non hosted photo I would show you but lawyer buddy reads this website, can't post bc he is banned.... Imagine that.
He sent me a screen shot to post and said tell them they're wrong. But it's from a legal resource you have to pay big money for.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 26, 2017)

Basically it says if you make the situation worse for the helpless person because of not excercising reasonable care then yes you may be held liable.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 26, 2017)

Article 11 of the Brussels Convention provides: “Every master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and passengers, to render assistance to everybody, even though an enemy, found at sea in danger of being lost.” Article 11 also provides that a vessel owner is not liable for the master’s failure to render the required aid.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 26, 2017)

American Law

The duty to rescue persons in danger at sea is now codified under US law at 46 U.S.C. §2304, The Salvage Act. It provides: â€œa master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render assistance to any individual found at sea in danger of being lost, so far as the master or individual in charge can do so without serious danger to the masterâ€™s or individualâ€™s vessel or individuals on board.â€� It also provides for a fine up to $1,000 and/or two years of imprisonment if violated. Unlike the Brussels and Salvage Conventions, it does not excuse a vessel owner from liability for inaction by the vesselâ€™s master.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 26, 2017)

Section 323 of th restatement (second) of torts.

No clue what that means but that's where it's found... I'm not a lawyer. I work in construction.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 26, 2017)

Fail to render aid and you may be going to jail.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 26, 2017)

That's for the ocean


----------



## mizzippi jb (Jan 26, 2017)

Here's a novel idea.  ?$?.* what the law says, shouldn't matter.  Stuff like that and the ability to sue for hot coffee is part of what's wrong with the world.   Do what's right.  Help your fellow man if there's any way possible.  Or you can sit back and do nothing and be a bigger part of what most of the world has become.  Kudos to the OP for making the effort.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 26, 2017)

mizzippi jb said:


> Here's a novel idea.  ?$?.* what the law says, shouldn't matter.  Stuff like that and the ability to sue for hot coffee is part of what's wrong with the world.   Do what's right.  Help your fellow man if there's any way possible.  Or you can sit back and do nothing and be a bigger part of what most of the world has become.  Kudos to the OP for making the effort.



Bc people like to argue online. Jeez.
For the record there's no law that would keep me from going looking for someone in a situation like yours


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 27, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> That's for the ocean


I will do what it takes to help. Yea and I hunt the ocean.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 27, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> Bc people like to argue online. Jeez.
> For the record there's no law that would keep me from going looking for someone in a situation like yours



Wait I ask you to explain. You never did. Prove it show us the text.  You were showed the law. Where is your counter point in text. Lets see the law that you have stated exist.


----------



## rnelson5 (Jan 27, 2017)

Yall sound like a bunch of grumpy old men....... oh wait..........


----------



## maconbacon (Jan 27, 2017)

Lawyer wife says yes GA has Good Samaritan law, covering anyone from liability when administering emergency aid within REASON.  Says it's pretty hard to not be covered by the law, ie if you drug someone out of a car and started doing cpr in the middle lane of the freeway, that's obviously negligent and you wouldn't be covered.


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 27, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> If I could post a non hosted photo I would show you but lawyer buddy reads this website, can't post bc he is banned.... Imagine that.
> He sent me a screen shot to post and said tell them they're wrong. But it's from a legal resource you have to pay big money for.



First, I am not a google lawyer.  I have had degrees and licenses and everything for about 35 years.  Oh and I ain't banned.

Second, I have those expensive research tools you mention.

Third, the Restatement of Torts is NOT a legal document, instead it is a book that gives statements about laws or what the authors think the law should be. The restatements are sometimes quoted to help explain areas of law in cases, but only when there is no direct statute or court decision. What I posted is ACTUAL Georgia statutory law.



Marverylo287 said:


> Basically it says if you make the situation worse for the helpless person because of not excercising reasonable care then yes you may be held liable.



Bascially, this is wrong.  Under Georgia law, you would have to be either grossly negligent or intentionally put someone in a worst situation to be liable.

Now, I'm pretty sure this rescue occurred in Florida and although I know that Florida has a similar statute, I have not researched it.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 27, 2017)

Aren't you just arguing the point I just made?


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 27, 2017)

From the lawyer:

The point I was attempting to make is that the good samartitan law is NOT blanket immunity in rescue situations. It's not as cut and dry as many of you have assumed, the law never is. 

You posted the statute, which as I'm sure you're aware is open to interpretation. You should check out Hamilton v. Cannon. A ga Supreme Court case in which Judge Fletcher, while dissenting, states specifically that a rescuer voluntarily assumes a duty to avoid affirmative conduct that makes the condition of the helpless person worse. Although this opinion is not controlling, it's important to note both Justice Sears and Justice Hines concurred with Fletcher's opinion. 

I routinely represent people and corporations being sued as a result of accused "negligence." If I told you who I worked for, I'm sure you would recognize the name. I have seen many lawsuits survive summary judgement motions where the plaintiff's attorney was able to artfully plead and convince a judge that a statute wasn't applicable in their specific situation. Some of these cases went ahead even though experienced attorneys on the defense side, with more practice years than I have lived, disagreed and thought the law was cut and dry.

While I think a case such as this would be hard for a plaintiff to win, I do think it's possible. Just because there's a Good Samaritan law, does not mean every person in every situation will be granted immunity from civil suit. 

Please note none of this should be construed as actual legal advice. 


QUOTE=MudDucker;10580423]First, I am not a google lawyer.  I have had degrees and licenses and everything for about 35 years.  Oh and I ain't banned.

Second, I have those expensive research tools you mention.

Third, the Restatement of Torts is NOT a legal document, instead it is a book that gives statements about laws or what the authors think the law should be. The restatements are sometimes quoted to help explain areas of law in cases, but only when there is no direct statute or court decision. What I posted is ACTUAL Georgia statutory law.



Bascially, this is wrong.  Under Georgia law, you would have to be either grossly negligent or intentionally put someone in a worst situation to be liable.

Now, I'm pretty sure this rescue occurred in Florida and although I know that Florida has a similar statute, I have not researched it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dustin Pate (Jan 27, 2017)

mizzippi jb said:


> Here's a novel idea.  ?$?.* what the law says, shouldn't matter.  Stuff like that and the ability to sue for hot coffee is part of what's wrong with the world.   Do what's right.  Help your fellow man if there's any way possible.  Or you can sit back and do nothing and be a bigger part of what most of the world has become.  Kudos to the OP for making the effort.



Very true. If I see someone in distress we are going to help. I'm not going to sit by and watch someone potentially die.


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 28, 2017)

Your lawyer friend should know that the dissent is NOT the decision and NOT the law.  Like the restatement, it is merely a discussion point.

And no, what you said and what I said are substantially different in terms of duty owed.

And yes, I don't care what the law says.  If I can render aid or rescue without endangering my life or interfering with professionals, I will do so.  If some ungrateful son of gun wants to sue, then lets go see a jury.


----------



## Marverylo287 (Jan 28, 2017)

First of all, I never said not to rescue someone in an emergency situation. I once rescued a flipped kayaker paddling around in 2 ft swells, who couldn't swim and wasn't wearing a life jacket, but that's another story. If I can help a situation without making it worse then I'm all for it. 

Secondly, while grossly negligent is the standard, you originally stated a person would have to intentionally do harm to someone, which isn't true. Grossly negligent is defined as the absence of a slight diligence, no intent needed. You then backtracked and stated gross negligence was required or intentionally putting someone in a worse position than before your rescue. 

Third, if you were sued involving a rescue, it would be up to you to affirmatively raise the defense. Meaning it doesn't just appear, a person would still have to hire a lawyer and fight the case. I don't know what kind of law you practice, but in civil litigation there is never 100% certainty. 

Also, I already mentioned that a dissenting opinion is not controlling, but it can be used as a basis to change the law. Nevertheless, what was stated in the dissent was an analysis on Good Samaritan statutes, not actually dissenting from the opinion, and referenced the restatement.  I still stand behind the statement that a person assumes a duty to avoid affirmative conduct that puts the person rescued in a worse condition. If you actually looked at Good Samaritan cases, most of them are in the context of medical care, so not much discussion relating to situations as contemplated in this thread.





MudDucker said:


> Your lawyer friend should know that the dissent is NOT the decision and NOT the law.  Like the restatement, it is merely a discussion point.
> 
> And no, what you said and what I said are substantially different in terms of duty owed.
> 
> And yes, I don't care what the law says.  If I can render aid or rescue without endangering my life or interfering with professionals, I will do so.  If some ungrateful son of gun wants to sue, then lets go see a jury.


----------



## Core Lokt (Jan 28, 2017)

Wow, never would have guessed all of this would have come up. If it is time to go. It's time to go. Regardless. Help if you can.


----------



## BigSwole (Jan 29, 2017)

Core Lokt said:


> Wow, never would have guessed all of this would have come up. If it is time to go. It's time to go. Regardless. Help if you can.



Naw man, we could get sued. We should probably sit right here and watch em drown.


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 29, 2017)

Marverylo287 said:


> First of all, I never said not to rescue someone in an emergency situation. I once rescued a flipped kayaker paddling around in 2 ft swells, who couldn't swim and wasn't wearing a life jacket, but that's another story. If I can help a situation without making it worse then I'm all for it.
> 
> Secondly, while grossly negligent is the standard, you originally stated a person would have to intentionally do harm to someone, which isn't true. Grossly negligent is defined as the absence of a slight diligence, no intent needed. You then backtracked and stated gross negligence was required or intentionally putting someone in a worse position than before your rescue.
> 
> ...



This is my last response, because you are arguing just to hear yourself type.

My first statement was a generalization, which for this thread is all that is needed.  Many legal scholars argue that there is very little difference in gross negligence and intentional neglect.

You first said your friend said that about a dissenting opinion.  You now say it is what you said.  Arguing about 99.9% of dissents being used to change the law is only a good topic for law professors.  In the real world it rarely happens unless there is a shift in the appellate court which rendered the decision.

Anyone can be sued for anything and yes, this would be a defense, which is what every law of this type is.  The proof of this defense has a very low threshold.

Lastly, I have actually handled a couple of cases dealing with professionals  rendering aid and no, there are not too many cases outside of the professionals being sued, because most people and their family are grateful for any attempts to render aid, which is why your comments are nothing more than mental masturbation.

I have and will continue to render aid whenever I can do so.  The only reason I posted in this thread is to remind folks what is taught in every first aid course ... 911 it the first resource and don't become a victim as well.

You could be sued for breathing and yes, the defense of I have a right to breath would have to be raised.


----------

