Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:04:02 -0400

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: NSW's Good Samaritan Legislation

If it isn't clear, my reading of the provisions is that the act or omission referred to in 58(2) is not limited to the type of acts or omissions referred to in 58(1). If that were the case, 58(2) would have referred back to 58(1) in some fashion.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cheifetz
Sent: May 31, 2006 10:57 PM
To: Neil Foster
Subject: RE: ODG: 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?

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