Croc

Thank you, it's really heartening to find that all the intelligent life hasn't yet deserted the site. I know half of them are just arguing with me to be contrarian anyway...and because it's me.

It doesn't, but being confident in yourself sure does. Lots of people are insecure about their weight.

1) He has no obligation to, but more mportantly 2) Any ruling against the defendant will be a clarification or nuance to the GS law, not an invalidation of it. If he/she truly acted negligently and paralyzed someone, then they should learn from it and use those lessons in the future, whether they help someone or not.

Who said anything about a waiver? NO, THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO IN THIS SITUATION IS TO CALL THE PARAMEDICS ASAP AND THEN GO OVER TO THE VEHICLE AND SEE IF YOU CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE IN ANY WAY. UNLESS THE CAR IS ACTUALLY BURNING, AND IMMINENT DANGER EXISTS, YOU SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO EXTRICATE SOMEONE FROM A CAR BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SPINAL INJURIES. THIS IS COMMON SENSE. BY TALKING TO THE PERSON IN AN ACCIDENT, YOU CAN BETTER TAKE STOCK OF THE SITUATION INSTEAD OF ACTING BRASHLY. IF THE VEHICLE IS MERELY LEAKING FUEL, AND NO FIRE HAS STARTED, WAIT TIL THE PARAMEDICS ARRIVE. IF THE LEAKING FUEL EVENTUALLY DOES CATCH FIRE, GUESS WHAT? YOU'RE ALREADY AT THE DOOR, TALKING TO THE PERSON, AND ARE IN A GREAT POSITION TO HELP THEM GET OUT IF NEED BE. WOW you just wished serious harm on someone for filing a lawsuit that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS ANY MERIT? That's extremely low. Not cool.

No. The first scenario involved the beginnings of a fire, and the second merely involved leaking fuel--which may or may not progress. And from the perspectie of a GS, these should NOT be identical, ESPECIALLY when extricating someone from a vehicle. It's common sense to be careful with an injured person. According to the complaint, the GS was negligent in this regard. But this isn't what happened. Accordng to the article, the GS "believed" the car would explode. It said nothing about a GS removing someone from a burning vehicle, or anything about an actual fire. Doesn't sound like there was any imminent danger whatsoever. You're correct in this statement, but this is not necessarily what happened. If the vehicle is NOT burning/on fire, but the GS merely THINKS it will spontaneously explode...what then? Intent rarely negates responsibility/negligence in the eyes of the law. That's where the "lesser crimes" come into play. Voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, murder I, murder II, wrongful death, etc. Those are all crimes/misdemeaners relating to the death of a person at the hands of another. And involuntary manslaughter is pretty close to "I didn't mean to do it, it was an accident." Still a charge, still a sentence...because of negligence, not any malicious intent. Again, how so? The lawsuit was already filed. It goes to trial. The verdict has not been received, for all we know the GS law will remain upheld and the complaint against the GS will be dismissed. Or maybe there's something unique about this case and the GS parted ways with rationality a long time ago and in fact acted negligently. But again, the court merely said a lawsuit could go to trial. The GS/defendant had tried to preemptively dismiss the lawsuit under the Good Samaritan statute, and the court merely disagreed with that and said that the lawsuit can go to trial. Nothing has ACTUALLY been rendered against the GS. Here's another scenario that follows similar logic to this case: I'm walking in a parking lot, I see someone getting into the exact same car I saw featured on an investigative report on Sudden Acceleration by the local news station last night. They aren't paying attention, and had to flood the engine to get the car started. I see a little old lady walking behind the car, and then the driver puts the car in reverse. I rush over in a panic and knock the old woman down and out of the way of impending doom! But nothing happened, the car just backed out like normal. "Phew, crisis averted!" I think. But the old woman now has broken wrists, ribs, and a hip. She was going to go on a cruise the next day to see her granddaughter's wedding in the Carribbean, and now has to miss both to get hospital care because some random dude knocked her over because he was paranoid about sudden acceleration. I'd better be sued in that scenario...you can't go pushing old people down without any real evidence that that vehicle will strike her. Just like you can't reasonably go from zero to freak out that a car is OMG ABOUT TO EXPLODE and act impetuously, thereby seriously injuring someone. ALL PEOPLE need to practice sound judgment and evaluate the situation, ESPECIALLY good samaritans, due to the recent accidents, or whatever, just observed.

Strange, I've never made a comment about Southerners, so I don't know why you lumped me in with that...I have quite a bit of family in the South, and I'e found Southerners to be pretty much the paradigm of hospitality.

Never have. It's a crime show, right? I think I've seen promos, but nothing more. Just put my highly rational, legalistic mind to work. Exactly, hence the lawsuit may proceed.

Never saw it...no clue.

That wouldn't ever be me. I'm much more measured with my emotions toward people, and cannot stang a cling-on.

Wow, they're right. The steering wheel wood trim isn't the same as the rest of the interior wood trim. Bad Buick! The complaints about the same radio/climate controls as GMC and Saturn are somewhat picky, but I can't disagree that it would be nice if each DIVISION had their own radio/climate control units instead of each platform. Cadillac has usually had premium radios, and GM either has to have a really nice radio in a Chevrolet so the same is acceptable in a Buick, or an acceptable radio in a Chevrolet that is too budget-feeling for a Buick.

I really don't see what the big deal is. And FOG, your constant litany of didainful remarks toward west-coasters is becoming rather irksome. All this ruling says is that a "good samaritan" CAN BE SUED. Not that the plaintiff will win, but merely that a "good samaritan" could be liable for damages caused by them if they fail to use appropriate judgement during their "assistance." The article has virtually NO details on the case, and as anyone who knows anything about law knows, individual rulings are highly dependent on the facts of the individual case. That's how precedent is created. So, let's posit two scenarios: SCENARIO I: Car crashes into a light pole at 45 mph and is destroyed, leaking fuel, and starting to catch fire. Good Samaritan ruhes over, forces the car door open and forcefully extracts the incapacitated individual because he/she thinks the car is about to explode. Saved a life, right? SCENARIO II: Car crashes into a light pole at 45 mph and is damaged heavily, leaking fuel. The occupant is incapacitated due to shock from the collision and the deployment of the airbags, but otherwise fine. Bewildered, but suffering no life-threatening injuries, the occupant realizes someone is forcing their way into the car and forcefully removing them. Suddenly, the occupant feels a pop or snap, and can no longer move his/her limbs after being yanked out so forcefully. Pretty different, huh? These are two extremes, and it's best to see how things play out over the long term. But Yahoo! posting this means it must have been a very slow news day, as this is a ruling that only says a lawsuit may proceed after an attempt by the defendant to have it preemptively dismissed due to the Good Samaritan statute. Nothing earth-shattering about a court ruling that a lawsuit may proceed.

NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE

BAAAAAAAACK TO THE TOPIC Bench press or squats...it's a tossup. Walking around is my most-frequently utilized exercise.

The nasty ones are bitter/jealous, and the really nice ones know they can't coast by on looks alone.

I have to have both: the beach for recreation, and the mountains as a backdrop:

Gross.

Amazing: I have no words. Cool: ^^That's the cheer team one of my HS friends coaches. She's also an NFL Colt's cheerleader.

Well since we're talking about "what should be," instead of "what is," I merely said that something along those lines would be better at getting people to slim down. I'm certainly not suggesting that a perfect implementation is reasonably possible, or even remotely possible. But it would at least be more "fair" by targeting the obese, instead of everyone, including healthy people who exercise and eat responsibly, paying a tax on any indulgences.

THAT is an acceptable Buick interior. Looks like it already has been upgraded over the Opel. Either that, or the prior rendering made everything look like matte plastic.

Oh, I see the confusion. What I meant was a 2005 STS maybe competed with a 1995 5er due to the chintzy interior and lack of features on the '05.

As was I. FWD Seville competed with...uh...the Deville? I truly don't know.

W-O-W...I guess I assumed too much from you guys. There have been a lot of stories the past few years of employers who limit healthcare coverage to people who are obese, who smoke, etc. Limit, not eliminate. And it only applies for employer-based health care. Basically, if you smoke, they won't coer smoking-related conditions, or at least not in full.

How so? Frankly, I think it's outrageous for thin, in shape people to subsidize the healthcare of lardasses. Which we do. I used to be very large, but I'm fine now. It really isn't that hard, either. ETA: Regarding Balth's point: I don't use BMI for those reasons. When I say overweight and obese, I'm using body fat percentages. There are size 2 women out there who are nothing but lard despite thin dimensions...and they're just as poorly off as the 300+ pounders.

The STS never competed with the 5-series. Only a GM exec would tell you that. In features offered, interior width, quality of materials, and style, it competed with a 5-series maybe from 1995. The CTS always has competed with the 5er. Just priced like a firesale at the dollar store.

I think a tax is the wrong way to go about it. Put another way: if I'm thin and work out, why should I be charged more for a cola than bottled water? I think the best way to go about it is the employers and insurance companies who tie health benefits to obesity.