Skip to comments.Colorado Man Could Sue Divers Who Saved Him From Submerged Car
Posted on 03/11/2014 7:35:08 AM PDT by PaulCruz2016
A Colorado man, despite acknowledging that he's lucky to be alive after being trapped in a submerged car, has filed an intent to sue his rescuers for half a million dollars.
Roy Ortiz filed his intent to sue the county of Boulder and his rescuers for a tentative $500,000 as a "preservative" measure, his attorney, Ed Ferszt, told ABCNews.com.
Ferszt said the county should have closed the road during floods in September. He said the first responders were also included because they did not realize Ortiz was trapped in the car until they prepared to lift it out of the water.
(Excerpt) Read more at gma.yahoo.com ...
Obviously some money-grubbing lawyer saw an opportunity to rake in the bucks and to participate in the destruction of American society in the process.
No good deed goes unpunished and he seems to think that no stupid action should go unrewarded.
Dirtbag and his POS ambulance chaser.
Some people don’t acknowledge they’re lucky to be alive. And suing the person who saved your life says a great deal more about what kind of person you truly are than it says anything about the good Samaritan who rescued you from perishing from the earth.
Good like finding a jury to go along with his idea that he was a victim.
Do you know how many cubic feet of air is required to sustain human life for two hours?
They risked their lives to save his life. Some judge and/or jury ought tell him to shut his mouth.
If I were on that jury, I’d vote to put him back in the water and leave him there.
Personal responsibility is sadly lacking in this country. He’s not responsible for putting himself in danger, so someone else should the foot the tab for his own stupidity.
Dumb clients, ambulance-chasing legal scumbags and chutzpah shows three’s a crowd.
And I’m ashamed to live in Colorado with the likes of this guy.
Hard to say at this point whether they were negligent in not closing the road he was on or not, or whether they should have been quicker in recognizing that there was someone alive in the car. I’m not saying he’s correct, but given the statute of limitations for these types of claims (depending on the state) I think all his lawyers are doing at this point is establishing the right to sue, if it comes to that. I think it was smart for them to do this, and I don’t blame this guy for keeping this option open. In the end, maybe all he wants is some leverage such that they will help him deal with the medical bills.
For the record, I share the views of most here that there are way too many lawsuits, and especially way too many frivolous ones. That said, sometimes you need a lawyer, and sometimes suing someone is the right thing to do.
So on what grounds is he suing them?
Of course he is unlikely to win because of sovereign immunity. The police and fire departments have no obligation to protect.
I wonder if Will Smith ever sued that robot?
“What are his actual losses? It does not sound like he has any permanent injury so if they were negligent maybe they would be liable for medical bills and loss of property.”
I think the medical bills were probably a big part of his decision ($40,000 per the story). Also, once it gets into the attorney’s hands they cast as wide a net as possible initially, and this is probably why they included the first responders etc. This doesn’t mean that the man himself isn’t grateful for being saved.
I know it’s all screwed up (the system), but I’m just trying to defend this guy from being labeled a deadbeat who is looking for a payday. Spending two hours in freezing water not knowing if you are going to survive had to be pretty tough.
I agree. If I were on that jury, I'd veto any settlement for this loser and his attorney no matter how long it took.
Should have waited an hour.
Maybe the simplest solution to avoid a$$holes suing like this in the future is to have first responders require all victims to sign a legal waiver BEFORE any rescue attempt proceeds.
BTW, this guy is wasting his money and his greedy lawyer should tell him that because under Colorado law, public safety officials have no duty to act. And notice he’s already said he’s suing not because he actually thinks his rescuers were derelict in their duty, but because he wants someone else to pay for his medical bills!
And finally: “In the document, Ferszt stated Ortiz survived by pure grace. “
Really? I wonder how “grace” would have worked out if none of the rescuers had shown up at all?
Quite frankly, Ortiz and his lawyer are scum!
In other news, an unidentified man in Judea is suing some Samaritan for not warning him of the danger of robbers on the road, moving him without checking for spinal injuries, pouring unauthorized oil into his wounds, putting him up in a cheap hotel, and abandoning him there at the mercy of the innkeeper.
I think you meant luck.
This being Boulder County, the bastion of EVERYTHING liberal in Colorado, chances are pretty good he will.
You also need to understand Colorado's recent "attitude" towards pot and realize who will be on the jury.
Who is this disgusting Roy Ortiz? I’ve seen scores of articles about him, but noting, not even his age mentioned.
I am not so sure. He caused the problem in the first place by driving on a compromised roadway and not being vigilant during a flood event. I understand that he may not be able to afford the cost of his medical bills, but he is ultimately responsible in this situation.
I know its all screwed up (the system), but Im just trying to defend this guy from being labeled a deadbeat who is looking for a payday. Spending two hours in freezing water not knowing if you are going to survive had to be pretty tough.
The system is indeed, screwed up. However, he needs to pony up and take responsibility. The responders placed their lives in jeapordy to rescue him. He should be honoring them instead of blaming them for his negligence.
Several years ago a member of my family was getting on the interstate where we live. When she was getting on the entrance ramp a police car went flying by her unto the interstate. The ramp itself was not shut down. She drove onto the interstate, and noticed that there were no cars. Then, out of nowhere, a car went ‘flying’ by her at a very fast speed, passing her on the left while driving on the shoulder (she was in the left lane at the time). Her whole car shook, and she was panicky. Then several police cars and state troopers went flying by her at high speed. Finally, she saw the car that had passed her run over a barrier put across the road to puncture the tires.
The bottom line is that she was OK, thank God! But, the police did not do an adequate job making sure that she didn't get on the interstate (remember, the police car passed her on the ramp and did nothing to stop her).
The car being chased contained a robbery suspect who had fled arrest. Tragically, a police officer died in the pursuit, so by the time the chase got to the interstate the police were very motivated.
All that said, if anything had happened to her I would have sued the state for as much as possible - not for the money, but because their number one responsibility is the safety of citizens, not putting citizens at risk during a chase.
Different case, I know, but my point is that sometimes you can be in a situation you had no way of knowing about before it happens.
His lawyer contends that the road should have been closed, implying that the flood condition existed for quite some time and the conditions were readily apparent. That should have every driver on alert. I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to flash floods, but driving next to an already flooded river was haphazard.
But, the police did not do an adequate job making sure that she didn't get on the interstate (remember, the police car passed her on the ramp and did nothing to stop her).
I call a flag on the play with this one. Glad your family member made it through, but the officer was involved in a pursuit. To stop and alert everyone that a situation is in progress, would be irresponsible. He runs the very real possibility of having the suspect evade capture. Which would you prefer?
but because their number one responsibility is the safety of citizens, not putting citizens at risk during a chase.
If I were on that jury, Id vote to put him back in the water and leave him there.
You're right !
He's not a deadbeat, he's a f'n SCUMBAG.
If anything would have happened to my family member, I would have stopped at nothing to ‘pay back’ that officer. Nothing. I have great respect for the police, but I have zero respect for people who are sworn to serve and protect, but who don't have the presence of mind or maturity to avoid playing Rambo. We live in a time when communication amongst police is instantaneous, and overhead surveillance is readily available. This officer was absolutely unnecessary for capture this suspect. The road block/tire puncture set up was called ahead. He was just ‘getting in on the action’, and in the process he did not prevent traffic from entering the interstate. The fact that the interstate had no cars on it at that point indicates that lots of other officers did their jobs.
He would have had to shoot me to stop me from what I would have done to him. That, you can take to the bank. I grew up in violence, and I hate violence. But I hate worse the irresponsive loss of innocent human life.
Somebody should publish the amount of $$ the lawyre will get if he wins his suite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.