I have a legal question concerning vehicle locks

[Evan]

P.S. Umm... Good Samaritan Laws do not authorize private citizens to enter or destroy the property of others -- such laws only require that you render aide to those clearly in need AND summon help to the scene and make a report of what you observed to the proper authorities after they arrive on scene before you leave... The law does not "deputize" you to "do whatever is necessary" -- it only mandates that you summon help to the scene and act if there is an immediate threat to life and limb...

Yikes, I completely misinterpreted that one. Thanks for the info.

@MrScruff:

Most people do misinterpret "Good Samaritan Laws"...

The specific statute in Louisiana has more to do with limiting the liability of doctors/health care professionals/emergency medical technicians from any liability for providing free care to the victims at the scene of an emergency in the event of injury to or the death of the victim... It also allows for medically trained persons (doctors/health care professionals/emergency medical technicians) who are licensed out of state to provide such emergency aide without being charged for practicing medicine without a license in Louisiana...

A "Good Samaritan Law" is more about coming to the aide of an injured or sick person who is in danger of dying... The law protects the bystander who renders aide from liability stemming from the provision of the life saving efforts so as not to discourage people from stepping forward and helping those injured in immediate danger of dying...

Here is an example:

A bystander comes upon the scene of an accident and observes a car on fire with a person trapped inside... Bystander calls for help then acts to free the trapped accident victim from the burning car... Sadly the accident victim is paralyzed by the efforts taken to free them from the car... When the public safety authorities (police/fire/ambulance) arrive on the scene the car is fully engulfed in flames...

In this situation, the bystander acted fully within the intent and spirit of the Good Samaritan Law and took steps to save a victim in immediate mortal peril... The bystander would be protected from liability for the injuries caused during the rescue efforts which caused the accident victim to become paralyzed as had the bystander done nothing at all the accident victim would have died at the scene...

Had the car not been on fire and the bystander still "rescued" the accident victim from the car and caused the same injury the Good Samaritan Law protections might not apply as there was not an immediate threat to the injured/sick person's life and the victim would have survived fine in the exact position the bystander found them in until the police/fire/ambulance the bystander summoned arrived at the scene...

There is nothing in any of the Good Samaritan Laws which protects bystanders who step in (insinuate themselves into a non-emergency) and cause damage to property to deal with a situation which is clearly not a medical emergency where life and limb are in immediate jeopardy...

Good Samaritan Laws do not require a person to render any aide beyond their level of training and ability... "Aide" provided can be as simple as calling 9-1-1 and waiting with the accident victim until help arrives... Some states have different laws which do require a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a person in need. These laws establish a "duty-to-assist" the victims at an emergency who require medical assistance... Again, that "assistance" need not arise to the level of heroic actions, it just requires that a bystander who happens upon an emergency summon aide for the victims and remain at the scene until authorities arrive...

Applying this information to the situation the OP was asking about leaves us with:

-- The child was not in immediate danger nor medical distress...
-- The bystanders damaged the car in a situation in which no one was in need of medical assistance...

The police/district attorney may have determined no criminal charges will be filed against the bystanders who provided the "aide" in the situation... However, no protection is afforded to those bystanders from the civil liability of their actions as the damages here are not related to any medical treatment or injury...

~~ Evan

[Evan]

That's absolutely true in a lot of jurisdictions, but not all.

In some places (e.g., here in Ontario), general members of the public are not compelled to do anything: morals aside, it's not illegal to be an inhumane jerk and watch someone die. If, however, I do choose to get involved, the Good Samaritan law protects me from being sued... even to the point where I can break your car window, so long as I'm acting in the good-faith belief that when I'm doing is necessary to help someone whose life is in danger:

Protection from liability 2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).

@MacGyver101:

If you could see a visible injury to the child locked in the car -- Kudos and I agree you would not be liable...

However, a quiet child trapped in a car or even one who is crying does not establish a medical emergency -- i.e. there is ZERO risk of the child dying in the time it would take the emergency services to arrive -- I disagree...

You committed an act of vandalism to the car and potentially kidnapped the child by taking custody of him/her without parental authority... You would have a difficult time convincing the police/district attorney that the child was in medical distress and that your actions were in a good faith belief that the child was in danger...

Your opinion in that situation is not rational and all Good Samaritan Laws generally have either a specific rationality requirement or a case history where some "rational/reasonableness" standard has been applied by the decisions in previous cases brought to bar that were not written into the law originally by the legislative branch which passed the law as written...

~~ Evan

[Louis_Traum]

P.S. Umm... Good Samaritan Laws do not authorize private citizens to enter or destroy the property of others -- such laws only require that you render aide to those clearly in need AND summon help to the scene and make a report of what you observed to the proper authorities after they arrive on scene before you leave...

That's absolutely true in a lot of jurisdictions, but not all.

In some places (e.g., here in Ontario), general members of the public are not compelled to do anything: morals aside, it's not illegal to be an inhumane jerk and watch someone die. If, however, I do choose to get involved, the Good Samaritan law protects me from being sued... even to the point where I can break your car window, so long as I'm acting in the good-faith belief that when I'm doing is necessary to help someone whose life is in danger:

Protection from liability 2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).

That's good to know.

[raimundo]

Look at law of trespass, its illegal to trespass on someones property but there are exceptions, if its in a flood and that property is the only high ground, you can legally go there. generally the exceptions refer to life and death situations,
was it legal for people in new orleans to break into grocery stores after several days of chaos, not if they really needed the food, now taking a television set is an entirely different question.

Look up the statutes that you think apply then look up the precedents that have been established by judgements in particular cases.
precedents sometimes are good things, they are not all bush and 5 black robed supreme corrupts versus gore and the poplular vote.

[ckc123]

To be honest here.. if it came across an true emergency situation in a vehicle, then TIME would be critical. (If time was not critical, then you could wait for the owner/police to show up etc).. and it time was critical, then I would not be grabbing the set of picks.. I would be grabbing the auto-center punch I have in my truck for breaking glass.. 20 seconds to break the glass, and the door is open, compared to how long to pick a lock?? maybe 4-5 mins...

same thing with possibly being charged.. if you show you acted in the most immediate way possible (to say get a child who is passed out in a car with extreme heat out) then you have a better case.. if it's a true emergency you take the fastest solution to save the person, not the "coolest" to show off your picking skills...

[landeroth]

what time of year was this in? i know in oklahoma, the heat from being inside a car is very hazardous to a child's health during summer.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/20 ... t-car.html

according to this article, 500 children have died from being left in a hot car since 1998. personally, i would not call 911, as doing so in oklahoma would make me responsible for giving care to the individual until an ambulance arrived, and i would be responsible for the ambulance fee if it was not needed. as i cannot determine if a child is suffering from a heatstroke or not, the best solution seems to be a vehicle description and license plate # and walking into the nearest store to let them deal with it. as far as a good samaritan law, well, in oklahoma if you try to help someone but the help turns out not to be needed when it arrives, you're liable (assuming you called an ambulance). but what evan posted about the person in a car holds true and is the common analogy i hear.

the real question, was it hot enough to pose a threat to the child's safety? how would a bystander determine whether that point was reached or not? how would they determine how long the child had been exposed to the heat?

[cledry]

In Florida you can break the window if you see a child or even a pet in a car. It only takes minutes to die.

If you were sued, the worst that could happen is you pay for a window, a small price to pay for saving a life.

[andy17]

If you were sued, the worst that could happen is you pay for a window, a small price to pay for saving a life.

But if you saved a life, it's doubtful you'd be successfully sued! If you did have to pay for the window it would probably be because you had no immediate cause to break that window in the first place (ie, you didn't save a life).

I agree with everyone who said that, in such a situation, you take the quickest route possible and break the window. To me, the notion of picking the door just seems like someone looking for an excuse to show off their skills, in which case just stick to locksport competitions.

[chaos4zap]

A locksmith just told me a story today that is somewhat related. He said was at a woman's house that had fallen and couldn't get up (I Know, I know...quite the cliche), but the woman called her daughter and the daughter, in turn, called this locksmith because the door to her mothers house was locked from the inside and the daughter didn't have a key. The locksmith said he had the door open and the daughter was tending to her mother by the time the police and ambulance finally arrived. The police were giving him a hard time asking how he knew the woman should have been granted access to the house and the locksmith told him that the daughter had presented some mail and what-not that proved she was the daughter. The police responded by telling him that they still don't like people forcing their way into anyplace and the locksmith said he took one step towards the officer and said "I don't 'force' my way in anywhere". He said the paramedics and fire fighters burst into laughter. Ok, so maybe you had to be there...but at least in this case, the police officer seemed more concerned with the lockpicking, then the elderly woman that was injured and needed help.

Also, the locksmith indicated that he could see the woman from the back window and it was clear that someone was truly in need to some help. On a personal note, I have a set of jiggler's only because they came in a Southord set that I got when I started. At that point, I kept them in the center console of my car (I no longer keep them anywhere near my car) and one time I was at a hardware store buying some practice locks and when I was checking out, I happen to notice that the guy in front of my was buying a large spool of wire. When I got to my car, I saw the guy and another guy trying to use the wire to fish for the lock handle on the inside, I broke out the jugglers and had the guy in his car in 30 seconds. There was no reason to think this guy was up to no good, but in hindsight, it was a careless move none-the-less. Even if it were legitimate, if a officer happened to come by and see it, I can't imagine he would enjoy the fact that I just happen to have a set of jigglers. All of this is to make the point that I use to be pretty careless, and now I am extremely aware of possible consequences. It kind of sucks because one of the primary reasons I got into this as a hobby was because it was also an incredibly practical skill to know, just in case I, or a friend, get's locked out...I would be able to help. Now, if the need came up...I almost certainly wouldn't have my tools on me. Probably have to call a locksmith anyway, if the Bogata set pined to the inside of my shirt doesn't get the job done

[art118]

It's ok I a child is in the car and with help with tw parnent
I had to do it one day because of that they say call the fire dep.
It depends on if it's too coy are cold the parent
Has to be there it may cost you money if you damage the car he'll
I would do it again just to save the kid

[Evan]

what time of year was this in? i know in oklahoma, the heat from being inside a car is very hazardous to a child's health during summer.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/20 ... t-car.html

according to this article, 500 children have died from being left in a hot car since 1998. personally, i would not call 911, as doing so in oklahoma would make me responsible for giving care to the individual until an ambulance arrived, and i would be responsible for the ambulance fee if it was not needed. as i cannot determine if a child is suffering from a heatstroke or not, the best solution seems to be a vehicle description and license plate # and walking into the nearest store to let them deal with it. as far as a good samaritan law, well, in oklahoma if you try to help someone but the help turns out not to be needed when it arrives, you're liable (assuming you called an ambulance). but what evan posted about the person in a car holds true and is the common analogy i hear.

the real question, was it hot enough to pose a threat to the child's safety? how would a bystander determine whether that point was reached or not? how would they determine how long the child had been exposed to the heat?

@landeroth:

If your local fire departments feel the need to send the 911 caller the bill for the run, then don't ask for an ambulance... Leaving children unattended in a motor vehicle is against the law, it is considered a form of child abuse defined in one way or another in all 50 states... Ask the 911 operator for the police and report an unattended child in a locked car and give the license number, color and location of the vehicle to the call taker... Let the police officer determine if further deployment of emergency services is required... If you ask for an ambulance when one is not needed and it costs the fire department money then rightfully so you get a bill because your call for a medical emergency was unfounded... When you report a potential crime or suspicious situation to the police for investigation you aren't billed for what they decide to do after arriving to investigate the report of trouble...

Don't ask for anything other than the police as you don't possess enough situational awareness to determine what else might be needed and you lack the expressed or implied legal authority to break and enter into a motor vehicle which doesn't belong to you -- if you did break open the car and found a legitimate emergency you can still be sued by the owner of the car for the damage, if you didn't find an emergency when you broke open the car -- breaking and entering into a motor vehicle is a serious crime itself without factoring in any possible custodial interference or kidnapping charges because of the presence of the child who becomes subject to your control once you open the vehicle like any of the other contents of the vehicle...

That should answer your questions, if you aren't medically qualified to determine whether a medical emergency exists, then report the facts that you do know: unattended child, locked in a car, location and description of vehicle... Let the police figure out what is needed beyond that as you summoned "assistance" and would be covered even under a mandatory requirement to render aide under the strictest of Good Samaritan Laws... All you are required to do is summon someone who is able to determine what help is needed, you aren't required to be able to figure out what is going on and make the correct decision yourself... Calling the police is always a good idea in a situation when you are unsure of whether or not someone needs help...

~~ Evan

[art118]

do well know that I thick about it one guy did do it and got away with it the other went to jail and got sued I wish I knew I thick we need a lawer view on it
Any one know one that can ask