Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued

[winnar111]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...s/samaritan_protection

LOS ANGELES ? Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.

Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.

Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.


I don't know what kind of asshole would sue a friend who tried to help them, but either way, the California courts make something clear.

See a car accident? Just drive away.

 

[woodie1]

Saw that on the evening news yesterday. So sad. I will call 911 and keep on driving I guess.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Saw that on the evening news yesterday. So sad. I will call 911 and keep on driving I guess.

Careful. Calling 911 from your cell establishes that you were there, and if some lawyer leech gets wind that you were there and didnt call 911 fast enough, or didn't otherwise do something you should have, you might get sued anyway.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Saw that on the evening news yesterday. So sad. I will call 911 and keep on driving I guess.

I won't. But then, I also wouldn't . . . and haven't . . . ever freaked out and regrettably made things worse. And I NEVER HAVE just "called 911 and kept on driving."

Nuance, weiner111, you don't do it, just like your dimbulb maximum hero.

. . . the California courts make something clear.

See a car accident? Just drive away.

Bullshit, sparky. That's NOT what they're saying at all. They're saying, "First, Lisa, sweetie, honey, sugar pie, daddies little star, unplug your ipod and do no fucking harm."

Personal responsibility, weiner111, aren't you ALL about that?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: woodie1
Saw that on the evening news yesterday. So sad. I will call 911 and keep on driving I guess.

Careful. Calling 911 from your cell establishes that you were there, and if some lawyer leech gets wind that you were there and didnt call 911 fast enough, or didn't otherwise do something you should have, you might get sued anyway.

Straighten your skirt and pull yourself together, drama queen dearie, that's hysterical bullshit coming out of your mouth, and it smells.

 

[Farang]

I hope this suit gets dropped, but I don't disagree with this ruling and I wouldn't want a precedent set that being a Good Samaritan clears you if you're an idiot. What if the victim was screaming at her "Do not move me, do not move me!!" because she knew about first aid, and despite the protests the friend did it anyway. If you let this sort of thing go then a case like that would be dismissed also. In this case I would need more facts, but it sounds more unfortunate than anything and because the girl had no malicious intent and was genuinely frightened it seems it should be dropped.

 

[GenHoth]

Remove the good Samaritan laws... Not a good choice

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: woodie1
Saw that on the evening news yesterday. So sad. I will call 911 and keep on driving I guess.

I won't. But then, I also wouldn't . . . and haven't . . . ever freaked out and regrettably made things worse. And I NEVER HAVE just "called 911 and kept on driving."

Nuance, weiner111, you don't do it, just like your dimbulb maximum hero.

. . . the California courts make something clear.

See a car accident? Just drive away.

Bullshit, sparky. That's NOT what they're saying at all. They're saying, "First, Lisa, sweetie, honey, sugar pie, daddies little star, unplug your ipod and do no fucking harm."

Personal responsibility, weiner111, aren't you ALL about that?

What is wrong with you, I can't understand a word you're saying. You saw the name winnar111 and immediately jumped to the conclusion that he is wrong, before even reading the first sentence. :roll:

The judgment is crystal clear - you are under no obligation to help someone. But if you do decide to help someone, you can be sued. I don't see any definition of what's acceptable and what's not, it's a gray area open to interpretation. Gray areas & interpretations are a bloodsucking lawyer's wet dream.

 

[BoomerD]

This is different than the normal good samaritan coverage however.

The friend pulled the lady from a car...and left her paralyzed. "pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll"

The friend went above and beyond his/her training and knowledge, and possibly caused/made worse the injuries.

You NEVER, NEVER pull someone from a car if they're injured, unless the car is on fire or in other immediate danger.

Wait for the EMS folks...let THEM extricate the injured party.

You are usually covered by the Good Samaritan law as long as you perform first aid in accordance with the level of training you have, perform it competently, and do no injury...even if the person dies.

Each state is a bit different in the wording of the Good Sam laws, but most adhere to this:

Good Samaritan doctrine - Black's Law 7th edition: 'A statute that exempts from liability a person (such as an off-duty physician) who voluntraily renders aid to another in imminent danger but negligently causes injury while rendering the aid. Some form of good-samaritan legislation has been enacted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.'

This is how the law reads verbatim. It is very straightforward as far as laws go, but there are some gray areas to it. The first questionable area is, 'unless the rescue attempt is unreasonable.' What this is referring to is when we provide care that is, by all accounts, unnecessary. Such as, removing an injured victim from a car that is not in imminent danger and the movement aggravates the injuries. Another example could be treating non-life-threatening injuries where the condition was worsened in the attempt, splinting a broken bone. Splinting requires moving the victim so we run the risk of causing an open fracture, etc.

The other area in question, 'the rescuer acts unreasonably in performing the attempted rescue.' First of all, a person is not obligated by law to do first aid in most states, not unless it's part of a job description obviously. Some states will consider it an act of negligence though, if we don't at least call for help. Beyond this, assisting is optional and voluntary, partly due to preserving the rescuer's own health in the process. Without protective equipment the rescuer could be exposed to infectious diseases by coming into contact with a victim's bodily fluids. In short, we are not obligated to render first aid in fear of cross-contamination yet, if we begin to help, we must continue to do so until one of three things happen: the victim recovers, another trained person replaces you or we are too physically exhausted to continue. Stopping for any other reason is interpreted legally as, 'acting unreasonably.' Then the good samaritan laws would offer us no protection if there were a tort suit.

http://www.essortment.com/all/goodsamaritanl_redg.htm


I've maintained at a minimum, the Red Cross Advanced First Aid and Emergency Rescue for 32 years.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
What is wrong with you, I can't understand a word you're saying.

Confession is good for the soul, Dumbo. Next time, watch my lips and sound out the words as you go.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
You NEVER, NEVER pull someone from a car if they're injured, unless the car is on fire or in other immediate danger.

Wait for the EMS folks...let THEM extricate the injured party.

You are usually covered by the Good Samaritan law as long as you perform first aid in accordance with the level of training you have, perform it competently, and do no injury...even if the person dies.

See? Boomer knows. You simply NEVER move an injured person whatsoever unless their imminent death will otherwise result, as you can easily do irreparable harm.

Ignorance is NEVER an excuse before the law, or don't YOU believe in the Republican mantra of personal responsibility, cubby?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: woodie1
Saw that on the evening news yesterday. So sad. I will call 911 and keep on driving I guess.

Careful. Calling 911 from your cell establishes that you were there, and if some lawyer leech gets wind that you were there and didnt call 911 fast enough, or didn't otherwise do something you should have, you might get sued anyway.

You just enjoy lying through outrageous, invented claims and exaggerations, it seems.

Policies require balancing things. You are the enemy of any reasonable analysis. You just pick a side you don't like, and the exaggerate like crazy to 'prove' your point.

You decided that you didn't like where the line was drawn on the recklessness of good samaritans, so instead of addressing the issue, you make up lies about the issue.

You could use your bad 'argument' against *any* limitations on the Samaritans' errors.

In other words, to paraphrase your argument, 'see an accident, you have unlimited license to do anything you think might help, no matter how reckless and harmful. Perform surgery with your pocket knife and bare hands? Sure! Shoot them to put them out of their misery? You were only trying to help! Any less threatens all good samaritans, and so you can't put any restrictions on them.'

 

[se7en]

I think I'll play it safe and speed up as I go by maybe even ducking down as not to be seen. Surely won't make any calls that can be traced at a later date.

 

[bozack]

Already I won't bother helping in certain situations for the fear whatever could happen after the fact, people are shitty and the court system enables that...sad state of affairs for sure, but why take the risk.

 

[skyking]

What I've done in the past is render comfort to the victim, establish communication and attempt to keep them conscious, remove debris that would be a danger to them and the emergency responders. We keep a blanket in the car at all times, I have left three at accidents. None of that involved moving the victim.

 

[tk149]

Here's an official summary of the case (bolded parts added).

Van Horn v. Watson

3. Van Horn v. Watson (Torti, Respondent) (consolidated cases) (S152360)
On Halloween night in 2004, plaintiff Alexandra Van Horn, defendant Lisa Torti,
and some other friends were relaxing at Torti?s home, where both Van Horn and Torti
smoked some marijuana. The friends went to a bar at 10:00 p.m., where they consumed
several drinks before leaving at 1:30 in the morning. On the way home, Van Horn and
Torti were passengers in two different cars. The driver of the car carrying Van Horn lost
control and crashed into a curb and light pole at about 45 miles per hour, causing the
vehicle?s front air bags to deploy. The car carrying Torti pulled over and the occupants
got out to help.
Torti removed Van Horn from the car. There is a dispute about how she did so.
Torti testified that she placed one arm under Van Horn?s legs and the other behind Van
Horn?s back and lifted her out of the vehicle. Torti also testified that she believed the car
might catch fire or ?blow up.? In contrast, Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her from
the vehicle by grabbing her arm and yanking her out ?like a rag doll.? Other witnesses
testified that there was no smoke or any other indication that the car might explode.

Emergency personnel arrived moments later. Plaintiff suffered various injuries, including
injury to her vertebrae, and was permanently paralyzed.
Van Horn sued Torti, alleging that she had not been in need of assistance from
Torti after the accident and that she sustained injury to her vertebrae only after Torti
negligently dragged her out of the vehicle, causing permanent damage to her spinal cord
and rendering her a paraplegic. Torti argued that she was immune from suit under Health
and Safety Code section 1799.102, which provides ?No person who in good faith, and not
for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable
for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.? The trial court ruled for Torti.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that section 1799.102 applies only to the
provision of medical care and that Torti had provided non-medical care.
The outcome of the case turns on the meaning of ?emergency care? in section
1799.102. Van Horn argues that the Legislature intended to immunize only those persons
who render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency. Torti, on the
other hand, argues that the phrase should be interpreted broadly to include both medical
and non-medical care. The parties discuss the meaning of the statute?s language, the way
the same or similar words are defined in other statutes, and the legislative history leading
to the enactment of the statute and subsequent amendments.

I wasn't able to find anything else offficial. Maybe the opinion hasn't been published yet?

http://appellatecases.courtinf...fm?dist=0&search=party

We have two different versions of what happened at the scene of the accident, which makes things less cut and dried. We have two people with possibly impaired judgment. We don't have anything else, such as whether or not the victim was unconscious, or asked not to be moved.

The courts have opened up a slippery slope here: What qualifies as "emergency care"?

Pulling somebody from a wrecked car doesn't qualify, even if you think it's leaking gas and going to catch fire.

Sounds like the court has qualified it to mean only "emergency medical care." Does that mean that you're not protected by the Good Samaritan law if the car actually IS on fire, and you harm the victim pulling him out? What if it's just a "little" fire?

Regardless of the facts of the case, I think many many people will come to the conclusion that it is indeed much safer to just ignore people in trouble. And legally speaking, they would be correct.

 

[conehead433]

Good grief. Just ignore people in trouble is right. A car involved in an accident catches flame and you see someone trapped inside. Burn baby burn.

 

[ZzZGuy]

First off, Perknose is a retarded 12 year old.

Second, we need more info.
Was there a small fire? Would the car turn off? What do they mean by "like a rag doll"?

Need answers to this before I pass judgment.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
First off, Perknose is a retarded 12 year old.

Second, we need more info.
Was there a small fire? Would the car turn off? What do they mean by "like a rag doll"?

Need answers to this before I pass judgment.

Hey, stupe, the answers to your probing questions are two posts above you.

There was NO FIRE, for one.

"Like a rag doll" means being hastily grabbed by one arm and yanked out by a semi-inebriated, marijuana impaired bozo, according to the victim. It rendered her a paraplegic.

Other witnesses reported "there was no smoke or any other indication that the car would explode."

Got it Leroy?

Looks like you just got owned by someone you consider a "retarded 12 year old."

What's that make you?

 

[umbrella39]

It will be very interesting to see her lawyers prove the accident didn't cause the paralysis but that the pulling out of the car like Raggedy Anne did.

 

[IronWing]

Setting aside the specifics of this case (because, while we have a brief summary, we don't really know what happened and won't ever know what happened because this is a P&N sound bite story to be forgotten next time a politician farts), as long as we maintain our system of private, optional health insurance these kind of suits will keep being filed. Plaintiffs either have no insurance and therefore have to sue someone, anyone, to keep from being destitute for the rest of their lives due to medical bills or the plaintiffs do have insurance and the insurance company is calling the shots, directing the plaintiffs to file suit in hope of recovering some of the insurer's payout. it's written into most policies, the insured plays along with the insurer's lawyers or they lose coverage. Many frivolous or unjust medical suits would vanish with a national health insurance system where this incentive to sue is removed.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: woodie1
Saw that on the evening news yesterday. So sad. I will call 911 and keep on driving I guess.

I won't. But then, I also wouldn't . . . and haven't . . . ever freaked out and regrettably made things worse. And I NEVER HAVE just "called 911 and kept on driving."

Nuance, weiner111, you don't do it, just like your dimbulb maximum hero.

. . . the California courts make something clear.

See a car accident? Just drive away.

Bullshit, sparky. That's NOT what they're saying at all. They're saying, "First, Lisa, sweetie, honey, sugar pie, daddies little star, unplug your ipod and do no fucking harm."

Personal responsibility, weiner111, aren't you ALL about that?

Precisely. My responsibility is to walk away, and their responsibility is to not crash into a telephone pole.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Setting aside the specifics of this case (because, while we have a brief summary, we don't really know what happened and won't ever know what happened because this is a P&N sound bite story to be forgotten next time a politician farts), as long as we maintain our system of private, optional health insurance these kind of suits will keep being filed. Plaintiffs either have no insurance and therefore have to sue someone, anyone, to keep from being destitute for the rest of their lives due to medical bills or the plaintiffs do have insurance and the insurance company is calling the shots, directing the plaintiffs to file suit in hope of recovering some of the insurer's payout. it's written into most policies, the insured plays along with the insurer's lawyers or they lose coverage. Many frivolous or unjust medical suits would vanish with a national health insurance system where this incentive to sue is removed.

Yes.

Whereas my reaction to weiner111's primitive BS was an inflamed and angry one, yours hits a key underlying point, while Craig234 does the heavy lifting of patiently exposing the OP's unbalanced viewpoint:

You just enjoy lying through outrageous, invented claims and exaggerations, it seems.

Policies require balancing things. You are the enemy of any reasonable analysis. You just pick a side you don't like, and the exaggerate like crazy to 'prove' your point.

You decided that you didn't like where the line was drawn on the recklessness of good samaritans, so instead of addressing the issue, you make up lies about the issue.

You could use your bad 'argument' against *any* limitations on the Samaritans' errors.

In other words, to paraphrase your argument, 'see an accident, you have unlimited license to do anything you think might help, no matter how reckless and harmful. Perform surgery with your pocket knife and bare hands? Sure! Shoot them to put them out of their misery? You were only trying to help! Any less threatens all good samaritans, and so you can't put any restrictions on them.'

 

[bozack]

as said above, the easy solution to avoid this is just do nothing...don't help at all.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: bozack
as said above, the easy solution to avoid this is just do nothing...don't help at all.

Actually, the best solution is to not do anything that you don't know how to do properly.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: bozack
as said above, the easy solution to avoid this is just do nothing...don't help at all.

Actually, the best solution is to not do anything that you don't know how to do properly.

That's it right there.