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

[0marTheZealot]

I already never help anyone because of shit like this. I've walked by people that have fallen down, people who needed help on the highway, etc etc. I'm not touching a stranger with a 10 foot pole if I can help it, this country is just too sue-happy.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I already never help anyone because of shit like this. I've walked by people that have fallen down, people who needed help on the highway, etc etc. I'm not touching a stranger with a 10 foot pole if I can help it, this country is just too sue-happy.

Well, that's just pathetic. You won't help someone because you're afraid?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

[tk149]

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.

Since only Emergency Response personnel (fire/ambulance/police) know the "proper" way to pull somebody out of a burning car or building, do you think that no one else should help?

Just how do you decide whether or not you are properly qualified to help?

I've taken First Aid training. Does that qualify me to pull somebody out of a mangled car wreck? Probably not. Therefore, according to your logic, I should just let somebody burn to death rather than risk liability.

I'm not picking on you, I'm just pointing out that the court's decision has far-reaching consequences. Hopefully, the Court has come up with an easily applied test of some sort; one that most people of below average intelligence can use. Without that sort of test, the Court has really opened up a can of worms in regards to Good Samaritan laws.

 

[retrospooty]

Whats this!!! a Winnar111 thread that isnt bashing, or blaming Obama, or the dems? Congrats man, I knew you could do it. =)

BAck to topic, CA courts are pretty rediculous, and have been for a long time, Soooo glad I left that craphole state. Other than the great weather - it has very little to offer anymore.

 

[Vic]

Suits can brought for almost any reason, that doesn't mean the plaintiff will win.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: tk149

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.

Since only Emergency Response personnel (fire/ambulance/police) know the "proper" way to pull somebody out of a burning car or building, do you think that no one else should help?

Just how do you decide whether or not you are properly qualified to help?

I've taken First Aid training. Does that qualify me to pull somebody out of a mangled car wreck? Probably not. Therefore, according to your logic, I should just let somebody burn to death rather than risk liability.

I'm not picking on you, I'm just pointing out that the court's decision has far-reaching consequences. Hopefully, the Court has come up with an easily applied test of some sort; one that most people of below average intelligence can use. Without that sort of test, the Court has really opened up a can of worms in regards to Good Samaritan laws.

Since you take a chance of hurting the person more by pulling them out of a mangled car wreck, unless it's in imminent danger of catching fire, leave them alone and let EMS extricate them.
If you have first aid training, you should know that the good samaritan law only protects you as long as you perform first aid within the limits of your training and do it to the best of your ability. If you try to give someone a tracheotomy with a ball point pen to save their life...you can be sued...even if you do it perfectly and do save that life. It's beyond the scope of your first aid training...

Because of my career in heavy construction, I've always maintained Advanced First Aid and Emergency Rescue certification. That doesn't give me the training to pull someone from a mangled wreck...but I could perhaps treat some injuries while they're in that mass of tangled wreckage...IF it doesn't put me at risk too.

 

[bozack]

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.

So then you agree....everyone just shouldn't do anything given that the only people with this training are professionals...and if you don't have any CPR training then you should just drive or walk on by...

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I already never help anyone because of shit like this. I've walked by people that have fallen down, people who needed help on the highway, etc etc. I'm not touching a stranger with a 10 foot pole if I can help it, this country is just too sue-happy.

This happened to my brother and I over the summer, we were in the city catching lunch walking down the street when an older gentleman happened to fall down, I didn't notice it at first in the moment, but another guy ran up and helped the guy out at the same time giving us a hard time for not doing anything, my brothers response was "why risk getting sued"....at the time I thought it was a little cold on his part, but in retrospect I now agree....in this world there is no reward for being a good samaritan and your better off just walking by and minding your own business.

 

[JS80]

See, we don't need guns either, because the police will come and save us!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I already never help anyone because of shit like this. I've walked by people that have fallen down, people who needed help on the highway, etc etc. I'm not touching a stranger with a 10 foot pole if I can help it, this country is just too sue-happy.

This happened to my brother and I over the summer, we were in the city catching lunch walking down the street when an older gentleman happened to fall down, I didn't notice it at first in the moment, but another guy ran up and helped the guy out at the same time giving us a hard time for not doing anything, my brothers response was "why risk getting sued"....at the time I thought it was a little cold on his part, but in retrospect I now agree....in this world there is no reward for being a good samaritan and your better off just walking by and minding your own business.

This is exactly why lawsuits like this are bad and worthless. What is the lawsuit suppose to do? Prevent future incidents of good samaritans dragging people like a "ragdoll"? No, it does nothing but have people be cold and callous like bozak's brother.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: bozack

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.

So then you agree....everyone just shouldn't do anything given that the only people with this training are professionals...and if you don't have any CPR training then you should just drive or walk on by...

If you don't know how to do first aid or cpr...how can you help? "oh, just kick them in the chest...I saw that on House and it worked." :roll:

If you can't safely help someone, don't know how to help them without hurting them worse, can't help them without putting yourself in danger...leave them alone.

How fucking difficult is it to understand? If you, in your attempt to help someone, cause them further injury or death, because you either didn't know WTF you were doing, or went above/beyond your training, you ARE liable to be sued for negligence or worse.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
If you don't know how to do first aid or cpr...how can you help? "oh, just kick them in the chest...I saw that on House and it worked." :roll:

If you can't safely help someone, don't know how to help them without hurting them worse, can't help them without putting yourself in danger...leave them alone.

How fucking difficult is it to understand? If you, in your attempt to help someone, cause them further injury or death, because you either didn't know WTF you were doing, or went above/beyond your training, you ARE liable to be sued for negligence or worse.

What I am saying is that the safe approach is to just do nothing...then you don't open yourself up for a lawsuit. Even if I had the proper training and ability it is lawsuits like this that would make me hesitate and or pass on assisting someone for fear that something could go wrong.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: JS80
This is exactly why lawsuits like this are bad and worthless. What is the lawsuit suppose to do? Prevent future incidents of good samaritans dragging people like a "ragdoll"? No, it does nothing but have people be cold and callous like bozak's brother.

As cold as his response was, again in retrospect it was practical and I am glad I was a bit oblivious in that instance as who knows what might have happened if I tried to help the guy out...better to be safe than sorry and it seems being safe = doing nothing.

 

[Harvey]

OMFGWTFBBQ!!! The world must be ending! I agree with winnar111 about something. :shocked:

There's always the possibility of reviewing the circumstances after such an event to confirm that the person trying to rescue the victim used good judgment, but in emergencies like this car crash, where not acting immediately means the victim may die, you don't always have the time to guess.

Originally posted by: BoomerD

If you don't know how to do first aid or cpr...how can you help? "oh, just kick them in the chest...I saw that on House and it worked." :roll:

Read the article. The rescuer and the victim are personal friends, and the rescuer believed the car was about to blow up. Sometimes, life and death circumstances don't allow the luxury of more than a best guess and a best effort.

And the woman may already have suffered the injury that paralyzed her.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: 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.

maybe thats what the other states should do when cali starts to slip into the sea.....just look away and let it go or else they might get sued for trying to help.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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.

It's a good summary you posted. Basically, it sounds possible or likely that it was 'group of friends got intoxicated and chose to drive, resulting in one crashing, and another using impaired judgement for an imagined danger of a car blowing up and in her imparied condition, grabbed her friend's arm and negligently yanked her out of the car', which may well have caused great injury.

A lot of cases are about the difference between what some politicians talk about in a room when they write a law, and the real world complications - in this case, the politicians trying to protect legitimate good samaritans, but writing a law that is relevant to if a drunk person causes great harm by negligently 'helping' someone. Where should the line be drawn? Are you in favor of punishing good samaritans, or in favor of denying any justice to people who are harmed by extreme negligence of a drunk friend? Neither is a great position.

Either side is easily exploited for hyperbole, but that's not very helpful. As so often, the real issues are not addressed - in this case, possibly, drunk people being in cars.

At the end of the day an argument can probably be made for both sides, and which you pick isn't going to be some wonderful, clearly right position.

The law has ways of dealing with that, too, though, by assigning 'proportional blame' and not having to side with either party completely.

Probably all of us are against legitimate, reasonable good samaritans becoming victims of lawsuits for trying to help. The question is where to draw the line with negligence.

I'm pretty comfortable with the legal process being for the jury to hear experts on both sides try to reach the right analysis, and making their call.

 

[ericlp]

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.

Pretty easy to do this... Just buy any cell phone off of ebay, don't register it, keep it charged up for emergency and throw it in the glove box. Heck, you can buy em for a dime a dozen at the good will, tho, I'm sure you could just buy a go phone, that should be able to dial 911 with out registering it. So...

Problem solved.

Tho, I've stopped at many accidents I've never had to pull someone from a burning wreck or perform any service on any one. That being said out of all of them, even tho I tried to get the door open on one them, none ever asked for my name or any information at all. So, hard to sue if you don't know who showed up at the party.

 

[Oceandevi]

In the red cross CPR class, we were told to not move someone that cannot move themselves(if they can't move they are likely injured) unless they were in mortal danger. There are procedures for doing it if you have to. They do involve some prep beyond just pulling on a limb. And you have to ask the person to even touch them in the first place. The drunkards got themselves into a mess, I really hope it does not adversely affect good samaritan laws.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: tk149

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.

Since only Emergency Response personnel (fire/ambulance/police) know the "proper" way to pull somebody out of a burning car or building, do you think that no one else should help?

Just how do you decide whether or not you are properly qualified to help?

I've taken First Aid training. Does that qualify me to pull somebody out of a mangled car wreck? Probably not. Therefore, according to your logic, I should just let somebody burn to death rather than risk liability.

I'm not picking on you, I'm just pointing out that the court's decision has far-reaching consequences. Hopefully, the Court has come up with an easily applied test of some sort; one that most people of below average intelligence can use. Without that sort of test, the Court has really opened up a can of worms in regards to Good Samaritan laws.

Since you take a chance of hurting the person more by pulling them out of a mangled car wreck, unless it's in imminent danger of catching fire, leave them alone and let EMS extricate them.
If you have first aid training, you should know that the good samaritan law only protects you as long as you perform first aid within the limits of your training and do it to the best of your ability. If you try to give someone a tracheotomy with a ball point pen to save their life...you can be sued...even if you do it perfectly and do save that life. It's beyond the scope of your first aid training...

Because of my career in heavy construction, I've always maintained Advanced First Aid and Emergency Rescue certification. That doesn't give me the training to pull someone from a mangled wreck...but I could perhaps treat some injuries while they're in that mass of tangled wreckage...IF it doesn't put me at risk too.

You've missed the point. If the Court only allows Good Samaritan protection for a MEDICAL emergency, then how do you define a medical emergency? The Defendant claimed she thought the car was going to catch fire, but the Court doesn't think that's enough. Unless the court defines exactly what kind of test to use, it opens up a slippery slope at best, and doesn't give ANY protection (if for example, the car IS on fire) at worst.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: bozack

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.

So then you agree....everyone just shouldn't do anything given that the only people with this training are professionals...and if you don't have any CPR training then you should just drive or walk on by...

You shouldn't drive on by or walk on by. If you don't have CPR training, you can at least call 911 to get EMS there and stay with the person until the ambulance arrives. No need to actually touch the person. You are negligent if you do things beyond your training; the tracheotomy with a pen is a good example of such.

As to the rest of the thread - good Samaritan laws protect you only if you perform aide within the scope of any training you have. Obviously, if there was a mortal danger such as fire, you are protected if you moved the person. It looks like there are a lot of heartless people in this thread who are too scared of getting sued compared with helping their fellow human being in need, even if its just as simple as sitting by their side until emergency response people arrive.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Do some of you really not see both sides of the issue?

Everyone is pretty much talking out of their ass as usual. And this ruling was merely whether or not the defendant COULD be found liable, not that she is liable. At the trial she can still prevail by showing she acted "reasonably."

In P&N:
lawyers = bad

dragging a person from a car despite having no medical experience and possibly causing them lifelong damage when an emergency vehicle would have been there shortly to extract her without any permanent damage = perfecly ok because at least you were trying to do the right thing.

No one is required to help someone else unless there is a duty/relationship where the rescuer is required to help (a mother can't watch her infant crawl into the street and then just sit there and watch.) To clearly illustrate the point, a person walking past a baby drowning facedown in an inch of water cannot be sued even if all he had to due was nudge the baby with his foot onto its back to save it. There's a very long list of reasons why the law is this way. If you care to learn go to school or read a book on it, or wiki it. Reading the posts here people think they are coming up with original arguments when they have been addressed by the courts or legislature time and again.

I wonder if winnar could actually start a thread where he isn't factually owned inside of 3 pages.

 

[StageLeft]

Unfvcking believable. She should have instead thrown a match at the car.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
You shouldn't drive on by or walk on by. If you don't have CPR training, you can at least call 911 to get EMS there and stay with the person until the ambulance arrives. No need to actually touch the person. You are negligent if you do things beyond your training; the tracheotomy with a pen is a good example of such.

As to the rest of the thread - good Samaritan laws protect you only if you perform aide within the scope of any training you have. Obviously, if there was a mortal danger such as fire, you are protected if you moved the person. It looks like there are a lot of heartless people in this thread who are too scared of getting sued compared with helping their fellow human being in need, even if its just as simple as sitting by their side until emergency response people arrive.

But as mentioned above, if you establish your presence at the scene of an incident then it could also open you up to a lawsuit if an aggressive attorney deems that you either didn't do something fast enough or at all...so why take the chance of getting yourself involved when the smart and safe thing to do is just keep on keeping on, no sense getting involved in any way if you risk getting punished.

 

[StageLeft]

We should all remember that the reason that is easy to come by in a thread on the internet while we sit in our boxers with a hand on our junk and another on the mouse is more elusive when we've just witnessed a major automobile accident and for the first time in our lives are being confronted with a situation we had only ever encountered on TV. Adrenaline can be overwhelming and cloud judgment substantially.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bozack
But as mentioned above, if you establish your presence at the scene of an incident then it could also open you up to a lawsuit if an aggressive attorney deems that you either didn't do something fast enough or at all...so why take the chance of getting yourself involved when the smart and safe thing to do is just keep on keeping on, no sense getting involved in any way if you risk getting punished.

It was mentioned above by winnar, who as usual, is completely wrong. You can't be sued for not calling 9/11 fast enough or failing to help someone you have no connection with. A lawyer filing that suit would probably be sanctioned for frivolousness. It cannot be any clearer. You cannot be sued for not helping, you can only be sued for helping in a negligent manner.

On a side note, if you are the only person at the scene of an accident in a remote location and you don't call the authorities because you think there's an outside chance you might get sued, then you're just a scumbag. But you still can't get sued even if you don't call.

Originally posted by: Skoorb
We should all remember that the reason that is easy to come by in a thread on the internet while we sit in our boxers with a hand on our junk and another on the mouse is more elusive when we've just witnessed a major automobile accident and for the first time in our lives are being confronted with a situation we had only ever encountered on TV. Adrenaline can be overwhelming and cloud judgment substantially.

And again, this was not a ruling of liability, it merely said that the case can go forward. The defendant will have every opportunity to show that she acted reasonably, and if she can convince a jury of that, then she walks. This ruling is merely about the law, not about the defendant's liability.

Originally posted by: tk149
The courts have opened up a slippery slope here: What qualifies as "emergency care"?

The CSC clarified that emergency care means emergency medical care, so where is the slippery slope? The case itself raises the question since defendant claimed immunity under that statute. In all likelihood the opposite contention was argued by plaintiff. One of the main purposes of the courts is statutory interpretation, since the legislature cannot possibly envision every possible scenario. Emergency care was a phrase in need of clarification.

The article's opening sentence is pretty stupid in this situation. "No good deed goes unpunished" doesn't apply here, since if the possibly inebriated defendant dragging an injured person from a car was the cause of lifelong paralysis, then it's hardly a good deed.