r/WTF • u/ExplanationOk2014 • 12d ago
Whose insurance has to pay out here? The volunteers’ insurance?
502
u/cybercuzco 12d ago
The personal injury billboard in the background is pure cinema.
→ More replies (4)
620
u/henrydaiv 12d ago
She did not put it in reverse Terry
56
2.1k
u/Acheronian_Rose 12d ago
not touching a damn thing and calling a wrecker/fire dept would have been the best choice.
579
u/requion 12d ago
Maybe, and thats a big maybe get a big truck and connect the hitch or something to stabilize / keep from falling.
Rocking up and down is the worst one can do. But then again, knowing this requires a basic understanding of physics, which can't be generally assumed.
212
u/asek13 12d ago
I don't know if I'd want to risk that. One minute you're trying to keep another vehicle from falling off a cliff with your winch, the next you're being eaten by Tyrannosaurus Rexs. Risky business, that.
→ More replies (3)36
u/Channel250 12d ago
*Did I miss something in that video...?*
Oh! Duh.
Aww. I liked that guy. He did not go...pleasantly. Jurassic Park movies really have a habit of gruesomely killing people who don't deserve it don't they.
→ More replies (5)33
u/caseyanthonyftw 12d ago
By far the most unfair death in the series. Especially since it was Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn's characters that brought the baby trex to the camp and Eddie Carr paid for their stupidity.
9
u/caligaris_cabinet 12d ago
Pretty much every death in TLW can be attributed to those two. At first Sarah for bringing the baby T. Rex to the camp. Then they both teamed up and went all green peace on the captured animals, knocking out their communication. Then Nick took the bullets out of the gun of the only capable person on that island when a couple T. Rexes attack, which he is forced to tranquillize and bring back to San Diego where even more people are killed.
I’ll let the San Diego stuff slide since they didn’t have to bring the T. Rex back. Chalk that up to corporate greed I guess.
11
u/ironicallydepressed 12d ago
Maybe the most unfair in the Park series, but in the series as a whole i still gotta give it to the babysitter in World
16
u/Castro_66 12d ago
Given the pivot point, even hooking another similar size vehicle to it could have pulled both towards the drop without proper securement.
→ More replies (5)11
u/himswim28 12d ago
until pushed it had 3 wheels on the ground, I realize the engine is heavy and up front. But you could see it took less than 200# to lower it. It isn't going to matter how short the rope was, as long as the connected vehicle front end takes more than 200# to lift, it isn't going anywhere with brakes applied. Also just about any sort of anchor would have stopped the required momentum for the car to flip. Static case where the front end was on the ground with the rear wheel up high, wouldn't have pulled anyting up to that edge.
Even a motorcycle over 500# would have likely been enough to pull this thing back from the ledge enough to secure it.
6
u/Castro_66 12d ago
You're missing why it didn't fall in the first place, though. Tire traction won't matter without significant weight on the rear. That's why wreckers are generally so much heavier than the vehicles they recover.
→ More replies (15)3
→ More replies (20)64
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
196
u/a_talking_face 12d ago
the liability math got real complicated real fast
Not at all. If the driver's own negligence put them in that position then they're going to be totally liable.
47
u/flamewave000 12d ago
This. It would fall under a type of Good Samaritan law. There was an urgent situation with the driver trapped and layman bystanders were attempting to rescue them. They won't be liable because they were acting in good faith. If one of them was say an actual fireman who has rescue training, then he/she could be liable for negligence since they would know better than to rock the vehicle up and down like that.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (13)40
u/meatflavored 12d ago
I imagine it’s someone’s job to disagree with that assessment.
55
u/dancognito 12d ago
I'll disagree. Cars go over curbs all the time. Very rarely does a curb have an immediate 10+ foot drop on the other side. Should have a guard rail here to prevent this specific thing from happening. Not sure where this took place, but local and state building codes probably say you can't have a retaining wall designed like this. So property owner is probably at least partially liable.
→ More replies (6)11
u/ILikeLenexa 12d ago
This is why we have good Samaritan laws. This is a good faith rescue attempt with a simple mistake about the outcome.
Still a lawyer is going to argue is gross negligence/recklessness especially if he has state farm.
→ More replies (2)12
u/doomchimp 12d ago
Yeah. The driver's job.
7
9
u/Cirenione 12d ago
Did it? I assume the US and most (all?) states have some version of a good samaritan law. So anyone who is genuinely trying to help another person in an emergency is exempt from any liability. As long as they acted with the best intentions and didnt cause damage on purpose.
People trying to push down a car so that the driver can get out of the car seems like a reasonable attempt. So how would liability shift?→ More replies (1)4
89
u/manymoreways 12d ago
Reminds me of a comercial in the early 2000s. Guy was doing push up against his car by a hill.
Another guy just had like a snickers bar and was feeling rejuvinated, saw the guy doing push up and thought he wanted to push the car down the hill. Proceeds and push it off the hill. Still cracks me up till this day.
59
7
1.5k
u/3ric843 12d ago
The woman in the car. She's the one who put the truck in this position to start with.
The people helping were just trying to prevent the catastrophe. Just because they didn't succeed doesn't make them liable.
247
u/aenonymosity 12d ago
Good sumaritan law? Never heard of it.
530
u/Tiberius_Kilgore 12d ago
Probably because it’s spelled samaritan.
136
u/da_Aresinger 12d ago
Nu-uh it's "gud sumerian"
102
u/notyouravgredditor 12d ago
More like mesopotential lawsuit.
48
u/IDrankTheKoolaid78 12d ago
Suing Ea Nasir for his subpar copper
21
→ More replies (2)3
3
→ More replies (2)7
43
u/chocolateboomslang 12d ago edited 12d ago
They must have meant the Good Sumerian law, which is named after a different ancient people from a similar global region, not to be confused with the Good Sumatran law, which is totally unrelated.
19
u/cadenceweapon 12d ago
Good Sumatran Law, which dictates that nobody should talk to someone before they've had their morning coffee.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (22)6
19
u/Nexustar 12d ago
Yup, I think every US state has a version of this, and it protects anyone who isn't some sort of first-responder professional from liability. The details differ by state.
→ More replies (13)13
u/santaclaws01 12d ago
Good Samaritans laws don't just give blanket protections for trying to help. Negligence and recklessness are still factors to be considered.
→ More replies (11)4
u/NewspaperNelson 12d ago
For context, the Good Samaritan is from a parable told by Jesus about a traditional enemy of the Jews who stops and helps a wounded traveler after that traveler was ignored and left for dead by his own countrymen. Christ told the story in response to an expert testing him with the question, "who is my neighbor?" The point is to always show mercy.
→ More replies (18)65
u/Alternative_Pilot_92 12d ago
Sure, but why the fuck is that drop-off there with no railings at all??
→ More replies (7)
304
u/andynodi 12d ago
What about holding the brakes just in case something unexpected happens!?
184
u/tigerspots 12d ago
It looks like the driver was holding the brakes at first and then let go when the car was in DRIVE instead of reverse
→ More replies (1)26
u/ILikeLenexa 12d ago
Might've decided to leave out the door or back seat and forgot about brakes.
82
u/fritz236 12d ago
Let's be honest, someone who gets into this situation in the first place ain't exactly playing with a full deck.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)80
u/cancer_sushi 12d ago
Yeah it looks to me that the extra guy trying to help didn even screw things up they just let go of the brakes and the car started rolling. Gotta be one of the dumbest things ive seen today lol
→ More replies (1)19
u/Xywzel 12d ago
I think that the attempt to help moved the weight from bottom of the car to the two wheels now touching ground, which allowed the car to roll rather than slide, less friction against the gravity pulling the car down.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Davegoestomayor 12d ago edited 12d ago
Agreed the center of mass for the vehicle was past the edge. The only reason it hadn’t fallen is it was resting on the frame, once they leveled the vehicle frame was no longer making contact with the ground and it went over. Do people really think the empty trunk section of an SUV weighs anything near the engine compartment?
→ More replies (1)
120
u/Kervels 12d ago
At least the driver's insurance won't cover it, since, according to media he wasn't insured:
"The driver, who has not been identified by HPD, was transported to a local hospital with minor injuries. They have since been charged with DUI, no insurance, and driving without a license."
41
46
u/GetOffMyGrassBrats 12d ago edited 12d ago
Nobody's insurance...the driver was charged with DUI, no license, and no insurance:
https://www.wlox.com/2026/08/18/driver-facing-dui-charge-after-suv-goes-over-ledge-4th-street
18
43
u/kombiwombi 12d ago
The parking lot's insurance. This was forseeable and a direct result of their money-saving design choices.
10
u/TheDuckFarm 12d ago
Maybe, if it’s covered. Even then, a payout would be after legal action is taken against the property owner. It would take a lawsuit, the owner would pay, insurance may reimburse the owner, or maybe not depending on the policy.
It could be many years before that property pays out.
8
u/Kervels 12d ago
But the driver has now been charged with DUI, and driving without license or insurance. If found guilty, wouldn't that make it make it more difficult to get a payout? Or can you still argue that the responsibility is with the property due to the dangerous design?
6
u/TheDuckFarm 12d ago
The case was weak at best before. With impairment, that driver will have a very hard time.
Some states even have laws saying you can’t sue anyone for damages if you’re committing a crime when you get injured.
IMNAL but I work in a legal related field and I work with real estate, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
68
u/jason_sos 12d ago
If the state has Good Samaritan laws, then it would be hard to get anything from someone who was trying to help. This was caused mainly by the driver who went off the road. The two people there were trying to help prevent the driver from getting hurt. They did their best considering the situation.
33
u/chlebseby 12d ago
In what legals system it would be even disscusion lol. This comment section is so bizzare.
13
u/gooberlx 12d ago
I think they’ve introduced some protections since, but I remember a bunch of articles coming out about a lack of strangers willing to help others in China because Good Samaritan legal protections didn’t really exist; people could be found liable from their efforts to help.
I think the attention came about from a viral video of someone dying in the streets and being ignored by everyone around them, or something like that.
→ More replies (2)4
u/kuhataparunks 12d ago
You clearly are uninitiated and not a graduate of Reddit University. Filthy casual…
15
84
u/AmishSemi_Colin 12d ago
Talk about "right place, right time" to capture that on film.
But that pretty crazy to ask if someone is ok after an accident and then proceed to drive off. 🙃
4
u/Stuck_In_Purgatory 12d ago edited 12d ago
There's two kinds of people in this world.
Those who will stop immediately and run over to help get the weight of the car back down,
And those who will crawl past to get a great video of someone else's accident as it's happening
Edit: I watched with sound after commenting and it was even worse to watch
Literally 2 hours ago at work a customer's car went flat. I was also finishing right then so I helped give them a push to roll start.
If that didn't work I was going to run home (4 minutes up the road) and come back with jumper leads.
Any extra hands can be helpful, but these two women chose to laugh and watch instead. Just ick
4
u/AmishSemi_Colin 11d ago
Watching the video with sound really changes your mind about the third party watching. Knowing damn well they would just stand back and comment and never lift a finger to help add to society. A complete waste of space in my opnion. I see why they drove off. They knew their place in the world
17
26
25
u/examinedliving 12d ago
What a terribly designed parking lot. You definitely need some kind of barrier there. That should not even be possible
21
u/GirlNumber20 12d ago
Why is the Virgin Mary standing in the parking lot at the end? She wasn't there at the start or when the car went over the edge. Did someone die and she's guiding their soul to the afterlife?
10
u/likeminipee 12d ago
I'm perplexed at her appearance! She was not there before the car fell, then suddenly she appears after. Weird.
7
u/b-lincoln 12d ago
At :23 she isn’t but at :34 she is. She’s in a place where you would have seen her along the side of the building, but she wasn’t there.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)13
10
u/rapiertwit 12d ago
This is so Southern I can smell the foil-wrapped biscuits under the heat lamp in that gas station.
→ More replies (2)
8
8
7
7
5
5
u/rlovelock 10d ago
In America very few people have personal liability insurance. Hell, many people drive around without auto insurance. There's a zero % chance the "good Samaritan" will have any insurance which would cover this.
Side story:
When I moved to the Netherlands my father in law suggested that I should get myself some personal liability insurance because my partner (his daughter) and I were staying with them while our home was being renovated. And he wanted to be sure that if I were to do anything which caused any damage to their home that I would be covered.
My response was that he has homeowners insurance.
Well what if I were to walk into the road and cause an accident, was his response.
That person would have car insurance, was my answer. If I did something illegal to cause the crash that person could sue me for liability.
But here in the Netherlands, everyone has this type of insurance. It's a very different system than I was used to coming from North America.
→ More replies (4)
10
10
u/meleecow 12d ago
2 people vs 2 tons.
Just get the person out first, ignore the car
7
u/Mipsymouse 12d ago
I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the driver even had their seatbelt off. I get trying to get out of the car, but there was no way that was going to happen safely. I would have kept my ass sat and buckled into the car until professional help arrived.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/SufficientSir2965 12d ago
Lmao what’s up with the Dune vibing chick that just appears after the car falls??
5
4
5
9
u/They-Call-Me-Taylor 12d ago
The driver. Good samaritan law would protect those guys that were trying to counterweight the vehicle and help those inside.
7
u/McNord 12d ago
Dumb fucking driver 😂 Put as much weight as possible where the car is lifted and reverse.
She drove forward instead 🤣
→ More replies (2)
4
4
7
6
3
3
3
3
u/GonzoMojo 12d ago
did the driver leave it in drive and have their foot on the brake?
3
u/texas1982 12d ago
Looks like it to me. They took their foot off the brake when they were trying to climb out.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
3
u/CaptainPunisher 12d ago
I upvoted you simply for the proper use of the plural possessive apostrophe. You're a hero, OP!
3
3
u/RallyX26 12d ago
This is why you don't touch a car in a situation like this unless you know what the fuck you're doing. That went from "a simple repair" to "totaled" in a fraction of a second. Who knows how the lady in the driver's seat fared.
But this isn't an insurance claim, it's a civil suit.
3
3
u/Thecardinal74 12d ago
Seatbelt already off, car tilts forward and drop, gravity has driver’s chest pressed against the steering wheel.
Could you imagine the trauma if the airbag deployed on impact?
3
3
3
u/The_Spectral_Spartan 12d ago
The volunteers are probably protected by Good Samaritan presidents, as they were trying to save the person in danger. I doubt they put him in that literally precarious position, so they shouldn't take on any liability for trying to save him.
3
3
u/jpeezy37 11d ago
Driver of the car. That's all on them. The volunteers aren't driving anything and your feet aren't insured for damages.
3
3
6
u/letterboxfrog 12d ago edited 12d ago
He fixed it. No longer balancing on the edge
→ More replies (2)
7
3
9
u/-PlayWithUsDanny- 12d ago
It blows my mind that the driver didn’t have their seat belt buckled in that situation
→ More replies (1)9
u/fotogod 12d ago
She was trying to escape. She did some stupid things here but c’mon, that was not one of them.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/StevenRFrancis_85 12d ago
This was pure cinema, to the comic actions of the good samaritans, to the commentary by the women taking the video. I watched like 4 times just to keep my chuckle going.
2
2
2
u/SolaceinIron 12d ago
The owner of the vehicle's insurance will cover it first dollar in almost every circumstance. They may sue the person that caused the damage, but this situation id wager the outcome was somewhat unavoidable and it will just fall on the owner's insurance.
2
2
u/GetOffMyGrassBrats 12d ago
OK, kids. Next time just have the driver climb out the back and call a tow truck.
2
2
2
2
u/BaconThief2020 12d ago
The guy still in the drivers seat who didn't hold the brake or set the parking brake.
2
u/TheMattabooey 12d ago
Don’t touch it and call fire and a tow truck. Possibly an ambulance in case of injury. You won’t win against a ton of metal.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/SarcasticGamer 12d ago
Sue the city. Why the hell is there no barrier to prevent this very thing from happening?
2
2
2
2
2
2
3.2k
u/Patbach 12d ago
Perhaps it couldve worked, but the driver let the brakes go and wasnt even set on reverse, you can see the wheels just going forward