Who pays ?

derek897

"Hypothetical " question. A casualty crawled out of a car in a single vehicle rtc. Member of public stops to assist and let's him sit in their car to await ambulance and fire service. Paramedics assess and fear neck injury and want fire service. To remove roof for extraction. The fire service remove the roof. This is my query. Who pays for the damage to the Good Samaritans car ?

Sterling Archer

Has happened before.

CharlieCroker

The good Samaritan's insurance company.

derek897

Yea I know. I have heard of a few occasions where this has happened. But like I said who pays. ?

derek897

Hi charlie. Is that a definite.

CharlieCroker

Yup, unless the car owner wants to pay for it themselves.

derek897

Thanks Charlie.

MugMugs

I wonder if the good samaratan could refuse the fire service?

bravestar

MugMugs wrote: »

I wonder if the good samaratan could refuse the fire service?

Well then the Good Samaritan would be putting someone's health/ life in danger and would be dealt with accordingly.

repsol

MugMugs wrote: »

I wonder if the good samaratan could refuse the fire service?

Only if they want to be the locked up Samaritan! The fire service can enter your property if they have a valid reason.They do not require your permission.If you obstruct them,the Gardai will deal with you.

seven_eleven

Im no fireman, or paramedic. But if your man was able to get up and be walked to the good samaritans car, do you think they would be able to extract them in a way that wont require the roof being cut off the car? Out from the side maybe.

repsol

seven_eleven wrote: »

Im no fireman, or paramedic. But if your man was able to get up and be walked to the good samaritans car, do you think they would be able to extract them in a way that wont require the roof being cut off the car? Out from the side maybe.

I am a fireman and a paramedic and I can tell you that it depends very much on the patient assessment.If the patient is exhibiting severe pain and lack of mobility coupled with a badly wrecked car (mechanism of injury) ,chances are the roof will come off to enable a proper boarding.Damage to vehicles is not a consideration if you think a person may have a serious spinal issue.People often have good mobility immediately after an accident and then seize up when the initial shock wears off.If you value your car that much,don't allow patients to sit in it!

derek897

( hypotheticaly) he was taken from side of vehicle with a ked. But as it turns out. He had serious neck injury. So taking roof off would have been justified. Paramedics and fire service have a duty of care not to make situation any worse. Or compound any injuries already received. As far as I know the Good Samaritan has absolutely no rights in this regard. Unless anyone can correct me on this.

MugMugs

repsol wrote: »

Only if they want to be the locked up Samaritan! The fire service can enter your property if they have a valid reason.They do not require your permission.If you obstruct them,the Gardai will deal with you.

bravestar wrote: »

Well then the Good Samaritan would be putting someone's health/ life in danger and would be dealt with accordingly.

Just asking folks!

Quite curious here. I can't see what cover would be given by the samaritans insurer.... I mean no peril insured has occured and it's not accidental really purely more a belligerent act by the fire Brigade....

derek897

Mug mugs it's hardly belligerent to remove a casualty from a car while trying to ensure that no further harm comes to said casualty.

MugMugs

derek897 wrote: »

Mug mugs it's hardly belligerent to remove a casualty from a car while trying to ensure that no further harm comes to said casualty.

Riiiight.... Apologies, wrong use of words there. Intentional.... It's not an insured peril and it's not accidental. It's intentional. The fire crew intentionally remove the roof not accidently..... Would the fire Brigade cover the costs should the insurers refuse to?

repsol

MugMugs wrote: »

Riiiight.... Apologies, wrong use of words there. Intentional.... It's not an insured peril and it's not accidental. It's intentional. The fire crew intentionally remove the roof not accidently..... Would the fire Brigade cover the costs should the insurers refuse to?

No.You intentionally let this guy sit in your car.YOU PAY:D

MugMugs

repsol wrote: »

No.You intentionally let this guy sit in your car.YOU PAY:D

Your response isn't progressive or logical.

repsol

MugMugs wrote: »

Your response isn't progressive or logical.

You are easily confused:rolleyes:

Esel

repsol wrote: »

You are easily confused:rolleyes:

I don't think MM is easily confused (or often wrong) when the question is about insurance.

stoneill

The legislation goes like this:
Any damage that may occur at the scene of an accident necessitated by actions of emergency crews shall be considered damage done by the original emergency - or words to that effect.

Don't start looking for SI numbers and all that stuff - I just remember reading it some time ago.

MugMugs

stoneill wrote: »

The legislation goes like this:
Any damage that may occur at the scene of an accident necessitated by actions of emergency crews shall be considered damage done by the original emergency - or words to that effect.

Don't start looking for SI numbers and all that stuff - I just remember reading it some time ago.

Excellent cheers for that

Paulzx

stoneill wrote: »

The legislation goes like this:
Any damage that may occur at the scene of an accident necessitated by actions of emergency crews shall be considered damage done by the original emergency - or words to that effect.

Don't start looking for SI numbers and all that stuff - I just remember reading it some time ago.

This is what you are looking for

28.—(1) The person in control at a fire or other emergency may, either personally or by a member of a fire brigade present at the incident or by a member of the Garda Síochána, or by such other person as he authorises, do (if necessary, by force) all such things as are, in his opinion, necessary or expedient for the purpose of extinguishing the fire or for protecting or rescuing persons or property and, in particular, may—


(a) enter any land or building in which there is reason to believe fire has broken out or the emergency exists or any other land or building;


(b) cause any land or building to be vacated by the occupants;


(c) pull down or demolish any building or part of a building;


(d) use any water supply, whether public or private;


(e) take water from any watercourse, lake, pond or other source, whether natural or artificial;


(f) remove anything from the vicinity of the fire or other emergency.


(2) (a) The person in control at a fire or other emergency may require that any available water supply be controlled from the main pipes in any way that he directs in order to give a greater supply and pressure of water.


(b) He may, if he considers it necessary for the protection of other property, cause water or other extinguishing agent to be directed against that property.


(c) No action shall lie against a fire authority, the person in control at the fire or other emergency or any person acting under his powers under this subsection.


(3) Any person who wilfully obstructs or impedes the exercise by the person in control at a fire or other emergency or by any person under his authority or by any member of the Garda Síochána of the powers conferred on that person or member by this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) Where damage to any property is caused by the exercise of a power conferred by this section, the damage shall, for all purposes and in particular for the purpose of any contract of insurance, be deemed to have been caused by the fire or emergency.


(5) Any clause or condition inserted in a contract of insurance purporting to exclude or having the effect of excluding the risk of damage caused by the exercise of a power conferred by this section shall be void where the risk of damage caused directly by the fire or emergency in relation to which the power is exercised would be covered by the contract.



From the Fire Services Act

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0030/sec0028.html#sec28

meathstevie

So the answer is whoever was responsible for causing the initial collission is the person responsible for compensating the "good Samaritan"

derek897

meathstevie, not sure if thats legally correct. it may be a case where it could be counted as damage from original rtc but its still not 100% clear

Paulzx

derek897 wrote: »

meathstevie, not sure if thats legally correct. it may be a case where it could be counted as damage from original rtc but its still not 100% clear

To be honest it is pretty clear.

do (if necessary, by force) all such things as are, in his opinion, necessary or expedient for the purpose of extinguishing the fire or for protecting or rescuing persons or property and, in particular, may—

Remember it applies to fires or "other emergencies"


The Act is quite specific on who is financially responsible for the damage caused i.e the insurer of the inital incident and it specifically disallows an insurance company from writing any clause to wriggle out.

crackcrack30

If 'lets say' the Samaritan caused a scene and the patient obtained a life changing injury being taken out the side of the samaritans car , said samaritan & his car insurance would/could likely appear in future compensatory court proceedings.........

Let the emergency services get on with there job..........whatever the senario.

derek897

cheers paulzx.

seven_eleven

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-20944339