Vanya said:
...Your [usaign's] general argument is that the circumstances ought to make a difference to whether or not the shooter should be sued. In this case, I think that you're saying that John should be willing to let the shooter off the hook because what he did was worthwhile: that John's foot injury was outweighed by saving the life of a little girl.
By this argument, it matters whether or not the shooter's intervention is effective.
What if the "Good Guy" shoots a bad guy who has a gun to the child's head and he pulls the trigger reflexively, killing the child?
What if the bad guy is is just nicked, and shoots the child because now he's really mad?
In each of these cases, the "Good Guy's" intervention has made things worse, even though his intentions were good.
So how much do the shooter's intentions matter?
Should John still choose not to sue him, just because his intentions were good? Even though John's foot injury is now just one among several bad outcomes of the shooter's intervention?...
An important perspective.
Vanya said:
...the thrust of the OP's question, it seems to me, is how much difference the (perceived) "good guy" status of the person by whom you're shot will make in that evaluation: would you be more likely to decide to overlook (possibly) negligent conduct by someone whose heart was in the right place, and/or who was acting to stop a serious crime?...
I guess there's really an ancillary question: "Can I afford to overlook the shooter's negligence?"
Let's make a couple of assumptions to focus things. Let's assume that the shooter, although having the best possible intentions, made a royal hash of things; so his liability is clear. And let's suppose also that he has sufficient insurance/personal assets to cover his liability.
If my injuries are relatively minor, my medical expenses are substantially covered by my insurance, and I have no significant other losses that I can't reasonably bear, why would I sue the shooter? Being the plaintiff in a law suit is no great fun, and, by hypothesis, it will all be a memory in a short time (except to the extent that I now have a good story for the cocktail party circuit).
On the other hand, let's say I was seriously hurt. I'll be off work for an extended period, and my injuries will leave me with a reduced future earning capacity. I have suffered significant economic loss, including various medical and rehabilitation expenses not covered by my medical insurance. And I have a family to support. So if I forgo seeking compensation from the negligent shooter, I am subjecing myself and my family to great financial (and emotional) deprivation and hardship. Is it proper for me to shirk my responsibilities to my family by giving the negligent shooter a free pass?
I guess that in the above described calculus, the nobility of the shooter's intentions really isn't a factor.
Nnobby45 said:
...The system is set up so law suits can be filed for anything....
If you think that's wrong, how would you change things?
Nnobby45 said:
...While the jury ultimately decides, the lawyer can make a case for virtually anything with making money is the issue far more than determining what was reasonable and prudent.
[1] Yes, it's finally up to the judge and jury. That's how our system has worked for something like 500+ years.
[2] As for lawyers being able to make a case for anything, I've known a lot of lawyer who wound up starving because they were doing a lousy job of picking cases and picking clients.
[3] And yes, for the lawyer it is about making money. The practice of law is his business and how he supports himself and his family. And like any business person, he's not going to stay in business if he doesn't conduct it in a reasonable and prudent way. For a trial lawyer, conducting his business in a reasonable and prudent way means, among other things, avoiding wasting time, effort and expense pursuing losing cases.