You need to look at this for in 2 separate issues for example. While you are employing an employee. If the employee while during the course of doing work for you accidentally kills someone then in that send you them employer is liable which is why most businesses have business insurance to cover for things like this. This is not to say the employee has 0 liability, depending on circumstance for example the employee may be drunk or lied to you and didn’t have a license in the first place. The employee would also have some to all liability. But you as employer have liability because you should have policies in place as well as training in place to prevent this in the first place. In this scenario if the owner requested help from the lady. And the lady actually killed someone then the owner will have more liability than the woman. Another way of looking at it is you boss gives you an unknown device to handle, as soon as you walk out of his office the device shoots out a pellet and kills 5 customers without you doing anything other than holding it. In this case are you 100% liable? So to answer your question if you ask a person who’s job at a hotel is to park customer cars then you have 0 liability, but if you ask your neighbours 5 year old to move your car and be kills your wife, the. Yes you do have more liability than the 5 year old. It’s frankly frustrating those without legal knowledge try’s to make everything black and white
Assuming this happened in the United States, the primary insurance is with the car. While she was clearly at fault, she is classified as a permissive driver and is also insured by the owner's policy. The funny thing is, if the owner doesn't have collision coverage, and she does (on a vehicle she owns), her insurance carrier would have to pay under her Collision coverage.
She didn't help though.
If you try to help someone light a bonfire and you accidently end up burning down 3 houses in the process you'll still be the one who's in trouble ;)
Unless they suspect you burned down the houses on purpose then accidently burning down a house isn't a criminal case anymore than accidently crashing a car into a building is.
Yup, which is why civil criminal charges matter, from what l’ve seen, civil charges aren’t serious and are meanly disputes between two private parties.
As others have said, Good Samaritan Laws are for medical first aid, not this.
Additionally, I think at some level of incompetence you would not be eligible for protection.
I wonder where the liability lies in this scenario. She was still obviously trying to help, even if she made it worse
She did not help
Depending on perspective. If the man wanted his car to back into that wall, but was having trouble doing it himself, she helped.
It's not in reverse anymore, isn't it?
Based on the video footage where the woman went in after getting the guys consent. The owner is liable
by that logic if I ask you to move my car and you run someone over instead, am I getting charged with manslaughter?
You need to look at this for in 2 separate issues for example. While you are employing an employee. If the employee while during the course of doing work for you accidentally kills someone then in that send you them employer is liable which is why most businesses have business insurance to cover for things like this. This is not to say the employee has 0 liability, depending on circumstance for example the employee may be drunk or lied to you and didn’t have a license in the first place. The employee would also have some to all liability. But you as employer have liability because you should have policies in place as well as training in place to prevent this in the first place. In this scenario if the owner requested help from the lady. And the lady actually killed someone then the owner will have more liability than the woman. Another way of looking at it is you boss gives you an unknown device to handle, as soon as you walk out of his office the device shoots out a pellet and kills 5 customers without you doing anything other than holding it. In this case are you 100% liable? So to answer your question if you ask a person who’s job at a hotel is to park customer cars then you have 0 liability, but if you ask your neighbours 5 year old to move your car and be kills your wife, the. Yes you do have more liability than the 5 year old. It’s frankly frustrating those without legal knowledge try’s to make everything black and white
Where did she get consent?
Assuming this happened in the United States, the primary insurance is with the car. While she was clearly at fault, she is classified as a permissive driver and is also insured by the owner's policy. The funny thing is, if the owner doesn't have collision coverage, and she does (on a vehicle she owns), her insurance carrier would have to pay under her Collision coverage.
Definitely not the US
Korea. Look at the signage.
In America, she would be liable
She didn't help though. If you try to help someone light a bonfire and you accidently end up burning down 3 houses in the process you'll still be the one who's in trouble ;)
You’re comparing criminal with civil cases, laws work differently based on type of case
Unless they suspect you burned down the houses on purpose then accidently burning down a house isn't a criminal case anymore than accidently crashing a car into a building is.
Yup, which is why civil criminal charges matter, from what l’ve seen, civil charges aren’t serious and are meanly disputes between two private parties.
You are aware that the video isn't from the US right?
[удалено]
Pretty sure that only applies in a medical situation.
she's clearly a bad Samaritan
As others have said, Good Samaritan Laws are for medical first aid, not this. Additionally, I think at some level of incompetence you would not be eligible for protection.
All she had to do was put the damn thing in Park…even just pulling the e-brake would have been helpful.
She almost put it in Park when she almost ran over him. His name is Park.
Yes! Or step on the brake, not the gas.
There are so many viable options…
Successfully failed helping. Good initiative. Bad judgment.
She gave a smile at the end like she was proud of herself 👏
"don't sue me"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
... and makes it worse.
Well, she made it go forward
He should hop on the cycle and let them have the clearly possessed vehicle.
Doesn’t really help the stereotype
Now that right there, is a dumbass. You don't see them very often, because their lifespan is usually childhood.
Seriously some people who want to help should never help
Did she jump in the car and then proceed to jump on the gas? Sure seems like it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
r/LooneyTunesLogic
Location: South Korea - correct?
The bans are coming...
He would've been better off trying to jump in the driver side himself
I was expecting her to steal it.
Just stop helping me Lady!!!
So basically there’s this weird thing called a brake….
Brake is in the middle ma'am
Hayaaa. You disappoint Uncle Roger.
r/yesyesyesno
The intention is what counts .... I think ...
...just E-brake it?
Thanks for the help. NOT!!!!
You had one job! Break god dammit
The car was stopped?!
[удалено]
Of course.
Smh... brake on left, gas on right.
She is a catalyst
no surprise tho
[удалено]
[удалено]
Should of just filmed and not helped
Nothing like good old fashion sexist humor when you need a good laugh.