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

[fskimospy]

As has been stated, nobody has been determined to be at fault here, the only ruling was that a case could happen.

Maybe everyone should sit back for a second and think about the consequences of the CSC saying 'it doesn't matter how horribly you fuck someone up, if you were trying to help it's okay.' All the CSC is allowing the courts to do is find the limit out after which causing catastrophic injury to someone you were 'helping' isn't okay.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

 

[skyking]

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.

In this case it appears the adrenaline was having a life or death struggle with alcohol and marijuana, when it came to impairing the defendant's judgement.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As has been stated, nobody has been determined to be at fault here, the only ruling was that a case could happen.

Maybe everyone should sit back for a second and think about the consequences of the CSC saying 'it doesn't matter how horribly you fuck someone up, if you were trying to help it's okay.' All the CSC is allowing the courts to do is find the limit out after which causing catastrophic injury to someone you were 'helping' isn't okay.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

The flip side of that, is at what point do I get protected to help somebody without fear of later lawsuit?

Somebody trips, falls, is bleeding (in obvious pain), and I'm the only one around. Do I help stop the bleeding, or just let them continue to bleed?

A disabled person in a motorized wheelchair overturns the wheelchair and can't move it. Do I stop to help them or just leave them there?

Out hiking with a friend, and something happens where they get pinned by a rock (landslide, trip and fall, whatever). Do I move the rock or leave them pinned there waiting (maybe bleeding to death from an injury I can't see) for somebody to get there?

With car accidents, does the car have to be on fire to be in danger? What about submerged in water? What about overturned? At what point does a vehicle have to be damaged, and/or a person in "danger" to be protected?

I am not a medical professional. I know basic life saving medical skills, but nothing major. At what point does it become too risky for me to offer help for fear of being sued into destitution? I wouldn't move somebody in a situation that wasn't life threatening for fear of further injury; however, if I see somebody in a less severe situation (like the wheelchair example) I am less likely to offer assistance because if they were injured then I am liable from helping them.

BoomerD I respect what you know, but based on what you're saying since I have limited medical knowledge I shouldn't render assistance to somebody. I would hate to think that becomes the situation where we can't help one another, because if we do we open ourselves up to lawsuits.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As has been stated, nobody has been determined to be at fault here, the only ruling was that a case could happen.

Maybe everyone should sit back for a second and think about the consequences of the CSC saying 'it doesn't matter how horribly you fuck someone up, if you were trying to help it's okay.' All the CSC is allowing the courts to do is find the limit out after which causing catastrophic injury to someone you were 'helping' isn't okay.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

The flip side of that, is at what point do I get protected to help somebody without fear of later lawsuit?

Somebody trips, falls, is bleeding (in obvious pain), and I'm the only one around. Do I help stop the bleeding, or just let them continue to bleed?

A disabled person in a motorized wheelchair overturns the wheelchair and can't move it. Do I stop to help them or just leave them there?

Out hiking with a friend, and something happens where they get pinned by a rock (landslide, trip and fall, whatever). Do I move the rock or leave them pinned there waiting (maybe bleeding to death from an injury I can't see) for somebody to get there?

With car accidents, does the car have to be on fire to be in danger? What about submerged in water? What about overturned? At what point does a vehicle have to be damaged, and/or a person in "danger" to be protected?

I am not a medical professional. I know basic life saving medical skills, but nothing major. At what point does it become too risky for me to offer help for fear of being sued into destitution? I wouldn't move somebody in a situation that wasn't life threatening for fear of further injury; however, if I see somebody in a less severe situation (like the wheelchair example) I am less likely to offer assistance because if they were injured then I am liable from helping them.

BoomerD I respect what you know, but based on what you're saying since I have limited medical knowledge I shouldn't render assistance to somebody. I would hate to think that becomes the situation where we can't help one another, because if we do we open ourselves up to lawsuits.

All those are great questions, and they are exactly what the courts are for. I think that any reasonable person should be able to agree that there must be a level of negligence, incompetence, and grievous harm inflicted upon the 'helped' by the 'helper' that is no longer acceptable.

It seems to me a drunk and high person who may have rendered someone a paraplegic while yanking them out of a vehicle that other witnesses state showed no further danger to the occupants is worth the courts taking a look at.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As has been stated, nobody has been determined to be at fault here, the only ruling was that a case could happen.

Maybe everyone should sit back for a second and think about the consequences of the CSC saying 'it doesn't matter how horribly you fuck someone up, if you were trying to help it's okay.' All the CSC is allowing the courts to do is find the limit out after which causing catastrophic injury to someone you were 'helping' isn't okay.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

The flip side of that, is at what point do I get protected to help somebody without fear of later lawsuit?

Somebody trips, falls, is bleeding (in obvious pain), and I'm the only one around. Do I help stop the bleeding, or just let them continue to bleed?

A disabled person in a motorized wheelchair overturns the wheelchair and can't move it. Do I stop to help them or just leave them there?

Out hiking with a friend, and something happens where they get pinned by a rock (landslide, trip and fall, whatever). Do I move the rock or leave them pinned there waiting (maybe bleeding to death from an injury I can't see) for somebody to get there?

With car accidents, does the car have to be on fire to be in danger? What about submerged in water? What about overturned? At what point does a vehicle have to be damaged, and/or a person in "danger" to be protected?

I am not a medical professional. I know basic life saving medical skills, but nothing major. At what point does it become too risky for me to offer help for fear of being sued into destitution? I wouldn't move somebody in a situation that wasn't life threatening for fear of further injury; however, if I see somebody in a less severe situation (like the wheelchair example) I am less likely to offer assistance because if they were injured then I am liable from helping them.

BoomerD I respect what you know, but based on what you're saying since I have limited medical knowledge I shouldn't render assistance to somebody. I would hate to think that becomes the situation where we can't help one another, because if we do we open ourselves up to lawsuits.

All those are great questions, and they are exactly what the courts are for. I think that any reasonable person should be able to agree that there must be a level of negligence, incompetence, and grievous harm inflicted upon the 'helped' by the 'helper' that is no longer acceptable.

It seems to me a drunk and high person who may have rendered someone a paraplegic while yanking them out of a vehicle that other witnesses state showed no further danger to the occupants is worth the courts taking a look at.

The courts are charged with interpretation of the law. The Legislature can enact a better, more clearly defined one. It won't prevent bad luck or stupidity, but if someone makes a good faith effort and a "reasonableness" standard is put into place then it might help.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

The courts are charged with interpretation of the law. The Legislature can enact a better, more clearly defined one. It won't prevent bad luck or stupidity, but if someone makes a good faith effort and a "reasonableness" standard is put into place then it might help.

Right, well generally that's what's in place already. Frankly I'm pretty surprised at the big gay dance in here trying to protect the right of drunk and high people to paralyze their friends with impunity.

I think some people are just looking for something to be outraged about.

 

[jonks]

Text of the decision really makes it pretty clear on which persons the legislature intended to confer immunity.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op.../documents/S152360.PDF

Torti?s expansive interpretation of section 1799.102 would undermine long-standing common law principles. As we previously noted, the general rule is that ?one has no duty to come to the aid of another.? As explained in the Restatement Second of Torts, ?The origin of the rule lay in the early common law distinction between action and inaction, or ?misfeasance? and ?non-feasance.? ? Courts were more concerned with affirmative acts of misbehavior than they were with an individual ?who merely did nothing, even though another might suffer serious harm because of his omission to act.? While there is no general duty to help, a good Samaritan who nonetheless ?undertakes to come to the aid of another . . . is under a duty to exercise due care in performance . . . .? As we explained in Artiglio v. Corning, ? ?it is ancient learning that one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to a duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all.?

The broad construction urged by Torti ? that section 1799.102 immunizes any person who provides any emergency care at the scene of any emergency ? would largely gut this well-established common law rule. As we recently noted, ? ?[w]e do not presume that the Legislature intends, when it enacts a statute, to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied.? ? Torti does not identify anything that would overcome the presumption that the Legislature did not intend to work such a radical departure.

 

[silverpig]

I've seen something like this before. Fortunately the yank-ee was not paralyzed.

There was a collision at an intersection where someone tried to turn left in front of oncoming traffic and didn't make it. Both cars were smashed up pretty good, but the scene was safe at that point. There was no fire, no smoke, just some coolant all over the road.

Some lady ran up to one of the cars grabbed one of the occupants by the arm and really started yanking on her trying to get her out of a broken window. It probably would have hurt a non-injured, healthy person let alone an accident victim. Fortunately another person nearby ran up to her and stopped her rescue attempt.

Unless the car is sinking in water or on fire you don't move the occupants. I suppose there are a few exceptions, but by and large you leave them alone.

 

[senseamp]

What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

Well, at issue in this string of rulings and appeals is the notion of whether or not immunity applied in this situation. If immunity applied, as the legislature intended, then defendant (and future defendants in similar circumstances) would know they are protected from suit any time they engaged in rendering good-faith rescue attempts at the scene of an emergency. The legislature wrote the law, and other immunity statutes are in effect, so had the court ruled against plaintiff, that would not in any way have been an arbitrary denial of her day in court, but merely carrying out the will of the legislature. Now defendant is at risk financially, and has to spend the time required to defend against the suit, exactly what the immunity provisions are designed to avoid for good actors.

I happen to agree with the majority that she did not fall within the immunity provision, but either way, this is hardly arbitrary.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

The big deal is having to hire a lawyer to defend oneself. Regardless of what the jury decides, you are still paying legal fees.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: skyking

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.

In this case it appears the adrenaline was having a life or death struggle with alcohol and marijuana, when it came to impairing the defendant's judgement.

*doh* That is bad. I will admit any statements i made in this thread were only after reading the first post; no additional details, so that is my big caveat

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

Well, at issue in this string of rulings and appeals is the notion of whether or not immunity applied in this situation. If immunity applied, as the legislature intended, then defendant (and future defendants in similar circumstances) would know they are protected from suit any time they engaged in rendering good-faith rescue attempts at the scene of an emergency. The legislature wrote the law, and other immunity statutes are in effect, so had the court ruled against plaintiff, that would not in any way have been an arbitrary denial of her day in court, but merely carrying out the will of the legislature. Now defendant is at risk financially, and has to spend the time required to defend against the suit, exactly what the immunity provisions are designed to avoid for good actors.

I happen at agree with the majority that she did not fall within the immunity provision, but either way, this is hardly arbitrary.

Good actors? More like stupid actors. She should have known moving a person after an accident is risky. Unless the car was burning or in smoke, she made a stupid decision that left another person paralyzed, and should have to answer for that decision in court.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

The big deal is having to hire a lawyer to defend oneself. Regardless of what the jury decides, you are still paying legal fees.

I see, so we should maybe just ban all lawsuits because God forbid someone will have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

The big deal is having to hire a lawyer to defend oneself. Regardless of what the jury decides, you are still paying legal fees.

I see, so we should maybe just ban all lawsuits because God forbid someone will have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves.

Good idea. Wish I had thought of that.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As has been stated, nobody has been determined to be at fault here, the only ruling was that a case could happen.

Maybe everyone should sit back for a second and think about the consequences of the CSC saying 'it doesn't matter how horribly you fuck someone up, if you were trying to help it's okay.' All the CSC is allowing the courts to do is find the limit out after which causing catastrophic injury to someone you were 'helping' isn't okay.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

I have to agree here.

The court's reasoning seems, well, reasonable:

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

Also, I see no reason to *knee-jerk* to the extreme conclusion that because fo this court ruling a person should never stop to help for fear of being sued.

(Oh, and people watch too much TV. I've seen an awful lot of automobile accidents and never has one "exploded". That's TV crap)

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

Well, at issue in this string of rulings and appeals is the notion of whether or not immunity applied in this situation. If immunity applied, as the legislature intended, then defendant (and future defendants in similar circumstances) would know they are protected from suit any time they engaged in rendering good-faith rescue attempts at the scene of an emergency. The legislature wrote the law, and other immunity statutes are in effect, so had the court ruled against plaintiff, that would not in any way have been an arbitrary denial of her day in court, but merely carrying out the will of the legislature. Now defendant is at risk financially, and has to spend the time required to defend against the suit, exactly what the immunity provisions are designed to avoid for good actors.

I happen at agree with the majority that she did not fall within the immunity provision, but either way, this is hardly arbitrary.

Good actors? More like stupid actors. She should have known moving a person after an accident is risky. Unless the car was burning or in smoke, she made a stupid decision that left another person paralyzed, and should have to answer for that decision in court.

Those facts are irrelevent here. This decision was solely about qualifications for immunity, not liability. The court didn't decide that she was a good actor or a bad actor. It merely held that only "emergency medical care" qualifies for immunity under the statute, and that defendant did not claim that she had administered such medical care. That's all. The court expressly stated that it had no opinion as to what constitutes medical care.

cliffs:
- to qualify for immunity, one needs to claim they provided emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency
- defendant never claimed she provided medical care
- therefore, she doesn't qualify for immunity, trial goes forward

 

[senseamp]

Good, someone needs to throw out these good samaritan laws in the first place. I can see a good samaritan excuse being used at a trial, but to use it to deny justice in the first place seems to leave the victim with no recourse at all for injuries caused by an idiot good samaritan.

 

[sactoking]

It's a good thing California doesn't have mandatory Duty to Assist provisions in their Good Samaritan laws like some places do (Minnesota). How effed up would that be: you're required by law to help and helping opens you up to legal liability for the assistance rendered.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: sactoking
It's a good thing California doesn't have mandatory Duty to Assist provisions in their Good Samaritan laws like some places do (Minnesota). How effed up would that be: you're required by law to help and helping opens you up to legal liability for the assistance rendered.

Duty to Assist generally only entails that you call emergency services and stay with the person until such services arrive. They aren't asking you to perform surgery if the person is bleeding or anything beyond your level of training.

 

[PokerGuy]

Pretty sad, cases like this are the reason why people will not come to someone else's aid anymore. The "only do what you have knowledge of" nonsense doesn't hold water either. No matter what you do to aid someone, there's a chance you could get sued. And even if you might ultimately prevail, it's going to cost you a lot to defend youself in such a suit.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's the big deal? The court is saying the lawsuit can go forward, not that she is actually entitled to damages.
If the claim is worthless, then the jury will not award any damages. The court should not be denying someone their day in court arbitrarily.

The big deal is having to hire a lawyer to defend oneself. Regardless of what the jury decides, you are still paying legal fees.

I see, so we should maybe just ban all lawsuits because God forbid someone will have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves.

LOL/WTF

Are you a fucking ambulance chaser or something?

Stick to making pro-Russia commentary in war-crime threads, dawg.

You do realize that many people/families would end up in bankruptcy after going through a "proper trial" with hired lawyers in order to clear their name in this kind of situation...

I'm not here to defend the dumb drunk/high broad who yanked her girlfriend out of a wrecked car. I just have an issue with this whole thing setting a bad precedent toward having well-meaning sober folks getting sued into homelessness because they just wanted to help.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: sactoking
It's a good thing California doesn't have mandatory Duty to Assist provisions in their Good Samaritan laws like some places do (Minnesota). How effed up would that be: you're required by law to help and helping opens you up to legal liability for the assistance rendered.

Duty to Assist generally only entails that you call emergency services and stay with the person until such services arrive. They aren't asking you to perform surgery if the person is bleeding or anything beyond your level of training.

Not only that, but punishment for failing to assist is a petty misdemeanor or a small fine. Probably the only way the legislatures could avoid a constitutional showdown.

 

[Phil21]

I see, so we should maybe just ban all lawsuits because God forbid someone will have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves.

I hope this doesn't come across as snarky, as that is not my intent. However, you've obviously never had to defend yourself in a "real" lawsuit that meant high-dollar attorneys. I have.

Most folks don't have $50k lying around, and even if they did - that is a HUGE burden to put on someone if they legitimately are trying to help out. If I get sued for this, it doesn't matter one iota whether I win or lose - I already have lost my house, car, likely my job due to court dates, and anything else I have of value. That's if I win. If I lose, I'm paying restitution for the rest of my life (afaik you cannot discharge restitution in a bankruptcy filing) on top of that.

I think what people are trying to point out is, that if there is ANY room for interpretation in a law such as this, you really *must* consider the lawsuit implications as doing otherwise is simply being irresponsible to those that depend on you for their lifestyle (kids, wife, etc.)

I think a lot of good points, for both sides were made here. This case isn't clear-cut, but that it has gotten so far in the trial process does concern me a little.

The way I (and a lawyer friend I showed this to) interpret the court ruling, is that Good Samaritan laws only apply to medical treatment (and possibly only to those actually officially trained in this area - such as first aide classes, nurses, doctors, etc.). I think everyone agrees physically moving someone out of danger (perceived or real) would simply not qualify. If the car is burning, and I simply pull someone out of it, I did not render any medical care whatsoever, leaving me open to a lawsuit if the person was a super prick. Hopefully, the court clears this up some and adds a provision of non-medical immediate danger assistance.



However.. In my home state (MN) this does bring up the Duty to Assist provision. Granted, the current court ruling only applies to CA, so this is a bit of stretch. However... If we assume other states will interpret good samaritan *only* as medical attention as CA did.. Then we have the interesting case that no matter which action you take, through no fault of your own you are potentially the target of a lawsuit. I openly admit that the chances of this are minute, and it would take a real asshole to sue you for helping in such a situation, but that does not mean the chance is not there to bankrupt you either way you act.

Duty to Assist generally only entails that you call emergency services and stay with the person until such services arrive. They aren't asking you to perform surgery if the person is bleeding or anything beyond your level of training.

I'm not so sure that is the case, as the law is written. It appears somewhat open to interpretation to me.

For MN, the law as-written states:

Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

What is "reasonable assistance"? It only *may* include obtaining aid. It does not state that obtaining aid absolves you of the duty to further act. I think most people would say pulling an unconscious person from a sinking car with only minutes until it goes under is "reasonable assistance" - and conversely that calling emergency workers who are at least 5-10 minutes away is not since there was no reasonable chance they could make a difference.

Pulling someone from a burning car very likely falls under the "without danger or peril to self or others" sentence, so you're likely covered on doing nothing if you fail to act when a car catches fire. After all, it might explode while you're in there helping out.

I'm not arguing the merits of the CA case here. I'm simply trying to point out that when there is reasonable room for interpretation in a law, cases will eventually come forward to test it. I can see this CA ruling (if it stands) opening the floodgates if you will, where lawyers now that they see it's possible to strip someone of the protections offered by Good Samaritan lawss, thinking there is a reasonable shot at getting a settlement out of someone vs. spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in defending themselves.

Hopefully this all just remains conjecture, and no one is scumbaggy enough to really go after this. I do have to wonder what I would have done in the same situation though. I see a friend crash, I'm somewhat intoxicated (but obviously not too badly so, since I'm able to walk and physically move someone else), think I smell gas from a fresh car crash, and my friend is unable to move. Do I just let them sit? Or do I in my intoxicated state completely overlook the possibility of further injury by pulling them out of the wreck? At the time, I can assure you whatever action I took I would have felt was absolutely necessary to mitigate the risks as much as possible. However, would I feel that way the next day? Does being drunk absolve me of the Duty to Act?

Interesting questions, at least to me. Under this interpretation of the law, there was a very outside chance I could have been sued for some of my previous actions in helping others. Luckily nothing went wrong, so there was no incentive for the other parties to do so but I will say that I likely will give more pause to helping someone out in non life-threatening situations. That right there, in my opinion, makes this country a shittier place to live. Car broken down at the side of the road? Want me to push you off the freeway so you don't have to pay a few hundred for a tow? Fuck you. Call a tow truck, I'm not taking any chances of being sued if your transmission blows up. That sort of thing - the minor day to day things, really does suck and slowly eats away at what I feel makes this country great. Yes, I know these two topics are not directly related

Sorry for the wall of text.

-Phil