That's fine, but that's not a good enough excuse to win a lawsuit!

You can't make a "vast reduction" without necessarily leaving some deserving people out in the cold.

Because I'd rather some people make a few extra bucks than those genuinely hurt to be prevented from litigating.

Effectively because you can't really sign away your life, and other people can't sign away their recklessness. Honestly, I don't know the ins and outs because it's something I learned in my first year of law school.

Yes, I am. But I think you misread what I wrote.

"However, at this point he's probably delivered hundreds, if not thousands, of babies and can't remember his rationale for ignoring his patient's wishes in the first place."

Of course! The slave owners were all good Christian men, so children produced out of "slavery" (we Tea Partiers prefer to call it "savery" since we took all those poor Africans away from that wretched, uncivilized land of Africa) were clearly the product of a consenting relationships by two people that truly loved…

I love your userpic. It's the only piece of art work that I've ever (been affected by or) purchased in my life.

Meh. They can have you sign whatever they want, that does NOT make the ridiculously outrageous terms legally binding. Unless you're doing something inherently dangerous (think: sky diving), that clause would never hold up in court.

Erm, she was a Democrat, though.

Well, whoever taught you that was wrong. Sorry. Ignorance is not a defense to law.

This is not true.

No, she's not liable for trying to commit suicide. She's liable for extremely reckless behavior that resulted in severe harm to other people. If they hadn't been trying to save her, had just been driving by and her car exploded, causing them immense injury, would your opinion remain? It's the same exact thing. Their…

Do you know much about insurance? They could have top-notch insurance, it ain't paying for their heroism.

The risks were the same, but how could you possible say that their decision would have been?

No, that's not the logic — but, even if it was, why not? If they knew it was a suicide attempt, perhaps they would rethink how much they were willing to endanger themselves.

How is this relevant, though? Mentally ill people aren't excused by the judicial system. They may not be held as culpable for their actions, but there ARE consequences. Regardless of her mental state, she endangered other people and is responsible for their injuries.

It really wouldn't.

While I agree that they should win this lawsuit, I think your analogy is actually the opposite of what occurred here. When someone is holding a gun to their head, their intentions are clear. The rescuer has the opportunity to decide whether the benefit is worth the risk, and is endangering himself knowing that the…

I definitely feel like the level of risk of harm one would be willing to take to save another's life would changed based on the circumstances. I'd be quite a bit more reluctant to put myself in harm's way knowing that the victim purposely created the harm in the first place.