Poor guy didn't need to get the bill. They should have figured something out, considering the circumstances. He'll probably get a ton of donations, though.
Wait, why did Clack get the bill? He saved the kid's life. You'd think they'd bill the kid's parents. It doesn't even make sense to me why they would bill the lifeguard. It makes about as much sense as sending a firefighter a bill because he pulled someone out of a burning building. Who comes up with this logic?
I still don't get it. He saved the kid's life and stayed with him until he was better. He was a Good Samaritan. I still don't understand why that justifies sticking him with the bill.
I don't know. That was the hospital's logic. The kid's parents weren't there. They probably couldn't get his parent's info from the kid. The lifeguard gave his info, instead. That's why. Unfair, but it's the way it works.
Yes, but he had no power of attorney to approve or deny any of it. The kid, having received the medical services, would be billed; but since he is a minor it would be brought to the legal guardians (most likely the parents). I could see some form of lawsuit arising from said guardians with "I didn't ask you to save him, I can't afford this" nonsense talk. But that would be doomed from the start because of good samaritan laws. But I don't know why the bill would be given to the lifeguard directly. Unless there is another wrinkle in the story that wasn't in this article or I overlooked I can't make this make sense.
This makes sense, but he shouldn't receive the bill. But we'd have to do a small research of that country's politics as to who receives the bill in these sort of circumstances.
