Actually no. There are Good Samaritan laws in place to protect you in cases exactly like this. If you're truly acting in good faith to save someone's life, you can't be held liable for any damages caused to them. That's mostly in place for example, if you break someone's rib whole performing CPR, then they can't sue you over it. It's to keep people from being afraid to help.
In Mr. Incredible's case, he saved a man falling off a roof. It doesn’t matter what the man's intention was, what matters is that Mr. Incredible acted in good faith to save someone from immediate danger. He legally can't be held responsible for the dude's broken neck and whatever.
No, Good Samaritan laws prevent you from being prosecuted for saving someone's life. Even then you'd have to demonstrate that he intended to hurt them by actually helping them. But Mr. Incredible wasn't taken to criminal court, he was sued in civil court by an enormous number of litigants who claimed damages arising from Bob's incompetence and recklessness.
I saw somewhere that this was specifically set in the window after the proto good Samaritan laws repealed, but before the laws were officially established.
China didn't have a Good Samaritan law until 2017, before that people were ignoring dying children on the street because they didn't want to be sued for getting involved. It's held up an example of why Good Samaritan laws are used in every functioning country.
Pretty much this.
Without Good Samaritan laws bad faith actors disincentive the population from doing the bare minimum to maintain society.
What got Mr. Incredible was a suite based on his competency in saving people, not that he saved people. When you make your profession saving peoples lives you have to be held to a standard that can be evaluated on results and since no paperwork or legal precedent had been established on what was "Good" Super heroing it was much easier to win a case
only in america where logic goes out the window
Actually no. There are Good Samaritan laws in place to protect you in cases exactly like this. If you're truly acting in good faith to save someone's life, you can't be held liable for any damages caused to them. That's mostly in place for example, if you break someone's rib whole performing CPR, then they can't sue you over it. It's to keep people from being afraid to help.
In Mr. Incredible's case, he saved a man falling off a roof. It doesn’t matter what the man's intention was, what matters is that Mr. Incredible acted in good faith to save someone from immediate danger. He legally can't be held responsible for the dude's broken neck and whatever.
wasn't the guy suicidal?
Yes, but that doesn't matter. Mr. Incredible had no way of knowing that when he acted to save the guy's life.
It's only the libshart areas that hate self-defense so much
No, Good Samaritan laws prevent you from being prosecuted for saving someone's life. Even then you'd have to demonstrate that he intended to hurt them by actually helping them. But Mr. Incredible wasn't taken to criminal court, he was sued in civil court by an enormous number of litigants who claimed damages arising from Bob's incompetence and recklessness.
As says, it was a civil suit
I saw somewhere that this was specifically set in the window after the proto good Samaritan laws repealed, but before the laws were officially established.
how plausible is it that the government worked with syndrome at some point!
Autism singlehandedly ruined the internet.
Why don't you waste your life in a thread about a show you like?
China didn't have a Good Samaritan law until 2017, before that people were ignoring dying children on the street because they didn't want to be sued for getting involved. It's held up an example of why Good Samaritan laws are used in every functioning country.
Pretty much this.
Without Good Samaritan laws bad faith actors disincentive the population from doing the bare minimum to maintain society.
What got Mr. Incredible was a suite based on his competency in saving people, not that he saved people. When you make your profession saving peoples lives you have to be held to a standard that can be evaluated on results and since no paperwork or legal precedent had been established on what was "Good" Super heroing it was much easier to win a case
>I HATE AUTISTIC ADULTS WITH A FRICKING PASSION
Self-loathing isn't healthy dude.
But he didn't save his life, he ruined his death
How did the government stop super criminals?