Police in Utah are searching for a group of construction workers, students and bystanders. But for a good reason.

This group is credited with saving a man’s life by working together to lift a burning car and pull a man to safety.

It was a “life-saving move that the Logan Police Department does not want to go unnoticed,” said Jeff Curtis, assistant chief of the police department in Logan, Utah.

The incident occurred Monday morning on a street near Utah State University and was captured on video.

Police said the BMW pulled out of a parking lot and in front of Wright. Curtis said the motorcyclist tried to avoid the car, which resulted in him laying the motorcycle down. After crashing, gas spilled out of the motorcycle and ignited, engulfing both the motorcycle and the front end of the car in flames…The motorcyclist became lodged underneath the burning vehicle…

Curtis said police are trying to find the people who helped so they can be recognized for their efforts at a city council meeting.

People torn from an ordinary day by extraordinary circumstances. Caring – as we all should – for the life of another human being.

  1. nobodyspecial says:

    You might like to compare it with this result of a liberal pinko Californian case http://knife-depot.com/blog/without-a-knife-a-life-is-lost-to-a-burning-vehicle/

  2. McCullough says:

    #13. Off duty drunk cop slammed into a car about a mile from my house in Colorado, both cars burst into flames, the dumb cop and the family of three all burned alive.

    People stopped but it was like a bomb going off.

  3. MikeN says:

    Really you have to blame the jury and judge in California that handed down this result. And of course tort reform is a bad idea.

  4. Jay says:

    @28 In most cases it is implied consent if the victim is unconscious because if the law required permission anyways then most rescue personnel would be arrested for assault.

  5. bobbo, words have a meaning and a context and often ultimately affect actions says:

    natefrog and Jay==thanks for the link to the story. Evidently, this non-medical person yanked on the person incorrectly causing an unnecessary injury that someone with more knowledge would not have done.

    I thought about secondary injury as that guy was dragged out from under the car on the highway. It doesn’t take much to band a head or crack a neck.

    Medical personnel would actually be held to a higher standard of care under this Ca rule because medical people know more to begin with and their scope of reasonable behavior is more limited than the unknowledgeable person. That said, I don’t know why the court “legislated from the bench” and changed the meaning of the words in the statute from what they mean every where else in the USA?

    watching tv, I always note how much effort trained paramedics make to assure the neck is stabilized before they move a patient. Is it grossly negligent not to do so?

    silly ruling I think. Under which rule will more people be injured that would not have without the rule? I don’t know, but my hunch tells me the Ca Court got it wrong. It was a 3 to 4 decision: one person’s opinion changed the law in California. Fair enough. Thats when the legislature is supposed to step in just as they are doing.

    Why can’t everybody just do the right thing?

    Yes—whatever that is, thats the joke. No matter what the rule is, some people will take advantage of it or screw things up. You got to sum up the consequences and weight the pro’s and con’s and make a judgment. Funny, thats just what judges sitting in a courtroom are supposed to do. The legislature did that originally===the judges are just looking at the case right in front of them.

    Bad Judges.

    From the video–the cop on scene seemed to do everything correctly. He first directed traffic so cars wouldn’t get in the way and when his physical help was needed he stopped and lent his hand. Always scares me to see a gun in a crowd like that. Too many stupid people around. Not me!====other people.

    Aihhhhh. What ya gonna do?

  6. bobbo, words have a meaning and a context and often ultimately affect actions says:

    alfie–I’m a progressive. You slander me and all my good brethren. I’d be insulted if you were a thinking person rather than a thumper.

    Ha, ha. Silly religious person of no consequences: back on your knees. Shouldn’t you be praying or something?

  7. Dallas says:

    Typical teabagger response is watch him dye. He clearly chose to ride a deathbike and wear no helmut. As Ron Paul said, those are the choices people make and hence their consequences.

  8. Skeptic says:

    I remember this German fellow named Helmut, and he worked in a fabric mill. Unfortunately he dyed with toxic pigments.

  9. Steve says:

    The level of cynicism around here is alarming. I was rescued from similar circumstances. A Chrysler station wagon ran half-way over me and parked on my back. My friends lifted the Chrysler and dragged me out. I regained consciousness with the teenage driver kneeling over me crying,” Don’t die man-I don’t have a license”. Seeing this was kinda creepy but the last thing that would have occurred to me was that the rescuers were foolish to do so. Smugness must come easy to the emotionally detached.

  10. TheCommodore says:

    Oh good Lord…. not reading ALL this drek. Let’s see, Ctrl-F – heroes. Yes a couple of posters used the word. Not as many as the situation deserves, but, ’nuff said.

  11. Jay says:

    @39 he didn’t decide to have a car drive out into him though.

  12. MikeN says:

    #41, what do you think of the case where someone was sued after trying to help, because the person being helped ended up with worse injuries?

  13. Skeptic says:

    Re Steve, “Don’t die man-I don’t have a license”.

    Now, if that ain’t an emotionally touching statement, I don’t know what is!

  14. noname says:

    The cops want to find out if the bystanders are Republicant’s or a Democrat. If Republicant’s cops have to ensure the right questions where asked before these hard working bystanders did anything!

    The cops want to make sure the Republicant’s asked the driver if they had health insurance and that the bystanders lectured the driver about the importance of self responsibility and as a responsible member part of Republicant’s society, Republicant’s can’t help and if need be let society or the individual die their deserved death.

    The proper response from the a republican’t driver would obviously be to erupt in cheers and whoops of “Yeah!”

    If the bystanders where Democrats, well then they are supposed to pull the driver out, no questions asked. No police recognition needed.

  15. McCullough says:

    #41. Steve- I have to agree, but it doesn’t surprise me with some of these guys.

    Scary, actually. I guess I’m an anachronism.

  16. ggore says:

    Contrast this with the people who yelled “YEAH!” when Ron Paul was asked if people in the hospital should be allowed to die instead of receive care if they did not have insurance at the Tea Party debate Monday night.

  17. anonycoward says:

    So…if the guy pulled from under the car ends up with a displaced hip, broken leg, pulled groin, etc, because of the way he was pulled from under the car, are all those people liable for “gross negligence” for not exercising due care in rescuing the guy? The guy in the neon shirt and helmet grabbed an ankle and pulled hard.

    This is why the California ruling is bad. It means that before you do anything good, you have to think of all the possible outcomes…very hard to do. It is easier and less risky to your long term life not to help than it is to put your own life in danger for a few seconds to help someone. It’s the chilling effect, and it is not necessary.

  18. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    The guy is apparently tweeting thanks to his rescuers from the hospital.

    The way the good samaritan laws have been explained to me is simple: if you don’t have to do anything until the pros get there, then don’t do anything. This guy needed to get out, or he dies.

    Coward #51…they pulled him out by his broken leg and broken hip. But he’s alive, and tweeting thanks to his rescuers.

    Mmaybe you could learn a little about first aid, say to the level of a Boy Scout, and you should be fine for making good emergency decisions. It’s not that hard if you engage your brain.

  19. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    Whoa, sorry about that first sentence. LOL

  20. Booter says:

    Don’t you like how the driver of the BMW was leaning on the burning car and then just stood by and watched everyone else raise the car?

  21. nobodyspecial says:

    @52 “if you don’t have to do anything until the pros get there, then don’t do anything.”

    The problem is that predictions about the future are always tricky.

    The women in California believed (incorrectly) that she had to remove the victim from the car because all crashed cars explode as soon as they stop – or 3 seconds after the hero leaps clear.

    #54 – a true BMW driver would never have stopped just for a burning motorcycle under the car!

  22. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    #55…that’s why I mentioned the Boy Scout…this is exactly what every one of them is taught starting at age 11. It’s not complicated. Be prepared.

  23. MikeN says:

    >Calvin Coolidge laid off a 1/3 of government regulators

    From Coolidge’s presidency until George W Bush, New York’s 9th Congressional district was represented by a Democrat. Now thanks to Obama, there is a Republican there.

  24. Glenn E. says:

    This is all baloney, about what the state wants to do. It’s a PR thing for state officials, great photo op, getting their mugs in the paper for something positive. Rather than for the bad news of today’s economic reality. And it wouldn’t surprise me if the BMW owner did try suing the “rescuers” for damages. In spite of the Utah code. Any good lawyer argue an exception to practically any law. For example, how about the mental anguish of the car owner? If you’ve got enough money, you’ve always got a case. IF I were these guys, I wouldn’t come forward. It’s not for their benefit to be named. It’s for the bureaucrats and others, who want to exploit them. You know the state won’t be offering them any rewards. Because then more people would come forward than were actually involved.

  25. natefrog says:

    @MikeN #24:

    Did you even read the article?

  26. natefrog says:

    @Bobbo #35:

    You bring up good points. Because of TV and such, it could easily be argued in court that people know about spinal injuries and the dangers of moving people. That is part of why the case in California went against the “Good Samaritan”.

    MikeN refuses to acknowledge this.

    Nobody would argue successfully that it was more dangerous removing a person from underneath a burning car or even removing them from underneath a non-burning car. That’s plain stupid to think otherwise.

    However, if somebody is in a wreck where the car is mangled up and their leg is stuck; yanking and pulling on them until they are finally free is negligent. …Unless the car is on fire or some other major threat.

  27. bobbo, the law is what happens whether you like it or not says:

    nate–I think what we both agree on that Micky will continue to refuse to even consider is that these situations are fact specific. There will be errors and mistakes made by people whatever the rule is. Mike and too many social critics like to isolate themselves and think there is only one good rule and Obaman/Democrats aren’t following it.

    Reality is much more interactive than that. I would take the rule as the common language clearly means: as a volunteer helper I cannot be sued even when I am stupid and negligent as long as I am not intentionally or grossly so.

    With more time–the guy in the video should have had his head and neck protected from damage as he was pulled from the wreck==but there was no time to do so and I saw no “gross” activity going on. Now–same scenario and a street curb was 10 feet away. I’d say actionable negligence if the guy was dragged 10 feet away and then head bounced off a 6 inch curb.

    Others may differ.

  28. kida says:

    They did what they had to do- and ragging him out they way they did was the best way- his neck and spine stayed pretty much straight. They did not have the space or strength to maintain holding the car up to get someone under there to brace/splint his neck or spine. And at the end of the day, a crippling injury beats the hell out of burning to death…

    How about the flip side of this argument? What about the dangers they faced?

    I have my first aid cert. (I know CPR and basic injury treatment) and had a situation a while back where I unwittingly gave CPR to a car-crash victim infected with a blood-borne disease, without a protective mask. I had no way of knowing (He carried no warning cards, tattoos or medi-alert bracelet). Luckilly for me, I was un-infected, but my point is, it is risky for everyone; the person being saved, and the person doing the saving. It is not an easy or small thing to do. Would i do it again? Definitely.

    Ps. Guy lived- sends me a small bunch of flowers each year on the anniversary of his accident 🙂 (Not asked for/needed, but a sweet and appreciated gesture)

  29. Scarlett says:

    This story is truely amazing! I got ran over and trapped under the motor of a car when I was 16. I was under the car over 45mins. Here is my link.. http://neverdoubtpossibilities.blogspot.com/?m=1


Bad Behavior has blocked 19389 access attempts in the last 7 days.