Wrongful Death - Term Paper Example

Wrongful Death Wrongful Death In this case, the driver of the ambulance or the defendant is guilty of among other things driving with intents of causing harm, negligence and carelessness. It is essential to note that the collision happened during a process that followed rules such as the placement of equipments and warning signs in locations that are visible for motorists and road users. On a scale of 0-20, the driver of the ambulance is guilty at that scale of 15. The ambulance driver is responsible and guilty for the accident and death of Mr. P. In this case, there are five levels of guilt.

These include guilt in the face of disaster, guilt because of not doing enough and interpersonal guilt. The last two levels of guilt include first word sympathy guilt and self-directed mental guilt (Ward, & Thornton, 2009). Guilt in the face of disaster is possible because the driver of the ambulance did not obey the warning and to some extent the rules of the road. It is essential to note that the driver was carrying a non-emergency individual to the county hospital. Because of the accident, the non-emergency individual lost his life.

This loss of life is related to the carelessness and ignorance of the driver (Ward, & Thornton, 2009). For instance, the driver passed the parked equipments and proceeded to over speed. He noted his mistake and hurriedly switched on the siren, in order for the truck driver to clear the road. This was meant to imply that the ambulance was carrying an emergency individual. In addition, it is important to note that the sub-foreman was standing 1,350 feet away from the first sign that indicated that men and equipment were on the road.

However, the ambulance driver ignored this advice and proceeded to drive at 50 miles an hour. Guilty of not doing enough occurs because the ambulance driver failed to stop or slow down as indicated by the warnings (Ward, & Thornton, 2009). As long as the sub-foreman was on the road with the signs showing that the road was closed or partially closed, the ambulance driver did not respond to the signs. Partial closure of the road meant that the truck driver had the discretion to make a turn at any point in order to ensure completion of his project.

However, the actions of the ambulance driver show that he did not do enough to stop the accident from occurring. Interpersonal guilt occurred because of the driver’s carelessness and ignorance. For instance, there were no skid marks on the spot of the accident, which means that the driver did not even try to stop or break the ambulance. First world sympathy guilt occurred because the driver allowed a non-emergency individual and used the speed of an emergency condition (Ward, & Thornton, 2009).

The driver carried Mr. P to the county hospital, but instead of using the normal speeds, he was driving at 50 miles per hour, which can be considered as emergency condition speeds. In addition, while at these speeds, the driver did not switch on the siren, which could have alerted the workers of the incoming ambulance. This could at least have enabled them to clear the road before the ambulance arrived at the spot. Self-directed mental guilt is possible because the driver missed an opportunity that would have enabled him to stop the accident.

In addition, he is in charge for the death of Mr. P because of his carelessness and unethical practices that led to the accident. Therefore, the ambulance driver is liable for wrongful death. ReferencesWard, J. O., & Thornton, R. J. (2009). Personal injury and wrongful death damages calculations: Transatlantic dialogue. Bingley, U.K: Emerald.