Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:56:30 -0400

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Almost a Limited Necessity Defence in Ireland

Ok, now I see what I missed and I'm even more puzzled. 58(2)(a) and (b) are conjunctive. So I'm even more puzzled. If the good samaritan is sufficiently impaired that 58(2)(a) is triggered, how could he or she not also be in breach of 58(2)(b). It's only negligence due to impairment as a result of voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs that eliminates the protection.

Do the Sydney beaches have problems with stoned surfers going to the rescue of people being attacked by Great Whites while trying to crash Nicole Kidman's establishment by swimming in?

David

-----Original Message-[David Cheifetz] ----
From: David Cheifetz
Sent: May 31, 2006 10:33 PM
To: Neil Foster
Subject: RE: ODG: Almost a Limited Necessity Defence in Ireland

Neil,

I must be missing something (other than the requisite number of brain cells).

Assuming I've read the provisions correctly, the effect of 57 & 58(2)(a) and (b) is - 58(2)(b) seems to be very clear on this - that the good samaritan is liable if he or she were negligent and the negligence caused injury. Why was it necessary to enact legislation stating the obvious? I have it on good authority that Australian legislators are at least as intelligent as the Canadian species, and I'm sure even ours could figure that much out.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>