Dave wrote:


It's in the standard of care. Legally, there's a vast difference between "as
an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent individual would have acted under the
circumstances" and the absence of "wanton misconduct." In the first case
you're liable if in hindsight someone finds that despite the best of
intentions you made a minor error. The second says you're liable only if you
screwed up and it looks like you really didn't give a ****. It's often easy
to get a jury to find that if you had been a bit more careful you wouldn't
have made the particular mistake. It's much harder to get them to find that
you really didn't care.

The first is the rule that applies if there's no good Samaritan law. A law
like the second is designed to encourage you to jump in and help without
fear that you won't have to pay millions because some Monday morning
quarterback came up with a theory about how you could have been more
careful.

Thanks Dave, I guess as a lay person one reads "is not liable for
damages as a result of rendering assistance or for an act or omission in
providing or arranging salvage, towage, medical treatment, or other
assistance when the individual acts as an ordinary, reasonable, and
prudent individual would have acted under the circumstances" as
providing indemnity, but I guess that's not the case. Is it any wonder
that some take a dim view those practicing the legal profession?

Cheers
Marty