|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 12:03 AM August 27th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The parties ultimately agreed to a settlement, but for just $325,000, significantly less than Sklyarsky would have received had he not been found partially liable
The husband wasn't found totally responsible, he was found partially responsible because he didn't follow the instructions of the attending psychiatrist at the New Hope Guild Center for Emotionally Disturbed Children to take the woman to a hospital emergency room. I assume that if the emergency room couldn't help the woman, it could have transferred her to a place that could, without an appointment. If the husband didn't agree with that advice, he could have sought assistance elsewhere, but he didn't.
So he's partially responsible. Seems reasonable to me. Would the court have come to the same conclusion had the roles been reversed and the wife had sued? Quite possibly or even likely, in my opinion.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl on 07:52 AM August 29th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
8 hours is a short period of time, depending on time of day he may simply have been trying to get his wife into another provider during that time. ER compared to a psychiatrist office is about a 20 fold difference, and you are asking a lay person to have the insight of a profession psychiatrist, and this isn't going to happen. Even the professionals will admit, if pressed, they can't tell who will and who wont commit suicide.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 08:08 AM August 29th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
A bit offtopic, but you can see here what is really wrong with a portion of the legal system in regards to this and medicine.
the problem is the second guessing through omission of action. in other words holding people up to the results of a group analysis (the court) when an individual in a situation suffers things that group doesnt (unsure of outcome, limited view, fewer options limited to what one person can think of).
in essence the court has developed the attitude that inaction is a negative form of action. therefore your not doing something is as culpable as doing something. this flips the model over and as such means that anyone in a situation is responsible for having to figure out all options and take them to the best knowledge of a groups analysis after the fact.
in medicine where this is more formalized, since its a business, the doctors run tests that arent needed to insure that all things have been done, and a few extra things. this to defend from the guilt of ommission...
the issue is whether a person has a legal obligation to assist someone else? if this is so, to what extent of personal injury are they compelled to accept before they cross the legal line of requirement and can abandon the cause? would the failure of a marraige because the man committed his wife to save her (and she later doesnt appreciate that time in her life)?
now that we are morally compelled to assist someone, do we get charged if we walk past a homeless person, or does this only apply when a large entity has to pay out to personal entity?
the whole thing is wrong in that it lies on a clever sounding argument that is false in its assumptions and compulsions.
the whole place seems to be going to shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:13 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
In India if a wife commits sucide a man is presumed to driven her to suicde and is jailed without investigation
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
radikal writes: "Wife is refused admittance to one facility, doesn't take nurse's advice to visit ER, kills self four days before daughter's wedding. Says in suicide note, "In my death, no one is guilty." Read it