Posted on 12/20/2008 1:51:18 PM PST by radar101
Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.
The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.
The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.
Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.
In 1980, the Legislature enacted the Health and Safety Code, which provides that "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."
Although that passage does not use the word "medical" in describing the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there, lawmakers intended to shield "only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This is verrrrry wrong.
Yeah. It’s a California court. Wrong, but not surprising.
California is a lost cause. The next time I’m there and see an accident I’ll just pass it by and forget it ever happened.
they must have watched seinfeld series finale and got drunk
What a jerk. Someone who sues a person who rescues them from peril deserves to be dead instead.
So if the car is burning you just let them lay there and cook. What if you don’t know if there is danger of burning??? It is sick if your safest course of action in these cases is just to drive on and ignore the victim.
We are out of our freaking minds in the court system.
Just more of the same insanity...
This is chilling, and will result in good Volunteers standing around with their hands in their pockets, refusing to help those in need, for fear of being sued.
I do hope it is overturned on appeal.
During the bumper to bumber traffic yesterday morning (Southern California on the 210 freeway), the guy directly behind me got rear-ended by a tailgaiting idiot. I didn’t stop.
Well, that will kill some people. Plenty of first-aid trained citizens won’t want to risk a lawsuit.
I can easily see us reaching the point where we have concurrent rulings on the books: that we can be sued for helping, as well as sued for not helping.
A good move on your part. But you have to admit trying to help someone and getting your ass sued off is a sad state of affairs.
I am retired now but when I was practicing actively (I have three separate board certifications)I always stopped but did so because I took an oath but I was always concerned something like this would happen. I wonder how many good folks will just drive by now!
LOL, sit tight, we called for the fire extraction rescue team, they should be here within the hour.
next question can you be sued for not helping when you could have ?
Miss Van Horn needs a good B—— slap. She’ll sue anyone she can get her hands on. What is so sad is they all work at a cosmetic counter in a department store. They don’t have anything anyway. Like blood from a stone. Lil miss paraplegic needs to learn to make some cash to support herself and get over everyone else being responsible that her dream to be a make up artist to the stars won’t come through. She choose to get in the car and go drinking and partying with her co-workers that not, but no one is suing her for that.
I guess if your in California the thing to do is cup your hands and whisper into the poor victims ear your gonna die.
B@stards... But it is, aferall, California.
A woman and two children are trapped in a car overturned on railroad tracks. She is dazed and not too responsive although alive. The 2 kids are knocked out but breathing. A train is coming and although there is time to pull them all out, no one does because of the potential law suit. The train rumbles by crashing into the car, killing all of them as the car and occupants are crushed. But no one gets sued. Makes sense to me.
Just how wrong can wrong be?
What's next for California's high court OKing the use sharia law for Muslims and having only Mexican laws applied to illegal aliens?
Most likely, this is Van Horn's insurance company suing Torti's insurance company by proxy. I doubt very much that Van Horn initiated this suit on her own, she is simply the named plaintiff.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Once again the court overturns the will of the people.
I would find it amusing if some Judges were in a wreck, and left to die, by would be helpers.
If I knew they were judges or lawyers I might fan the flames then drive off.
John Edwards, please call your office...
In a sick way, I totally agree. CA is a terrible waste of perfectly beautiful space.
And the next suit will be against someone who failed to help because they didn’t want to risk being liable. Catch-22.
Why stop at that? Toss a little gas on top.
Trial attorneys at their best.
If I am not mistaken they get you for that already. Damned if you do damned if you don't.
Perhaps that's what the Libs are up to: turning one against the other; destroy American's compassionate and Samaritan spirit. Why else would they allow such a thing.
Common street walkers deserve more respect.
I assisted several other motorist rescue a injured driver on Hiway 299 near Willow Creek in 1976. The car was over a embankment and landed in a Creek. The ambulance had a winch in the rear bumper and six of us carried the victim on a stretcher while the winch pulled us up a rip rap wall. I'm sure we bruised his ass several time as we struggled over the sharp rocks but he was so drunk I doubt he felt it.
That was the day of the CB radio and I made the first call to a someone with a land line and they made the call for help...
While they are burning, ask if they are a Republican or Democrat, lawyer or judge. If the answer isn’t one that I like, I walk away. One can make an argument that the ruling has tainted your ultimate actions.
Alinksy tactics, internal strife tears the country apart. It makes sense if you know about alinsky.
I had a neighbor who found a Piper Tri Pacer in his swimming pool(We live on an airport and the pilot was drunk). So my neighbor spent money for an A&E to pull the plane out without damaging, put it in his heated hanger(it was January) to dry it out.
the pilot then wanted to sue him because the chlorine in his swimming pool wrecked his radios!
As a life long Californian, I can honestly say that this place has become the water closet of the country.
“Give me your lazy, your under educated, your huddled victims yearning for handouts...”
I've got to wonder if that will make some emergency responders think twice about rendering any kind of aid if the line has been blurred as to what constitutes "emergency response" type actions versus "medical care" type actions.
These idiots in the court think they are so smart and intelligent and that everything is all about "nuance". It's to the point that their actions are destroying society while they smugly pat themselves on the back.
I'd use the flame retardant I carry for such occasions. WD-40 is a flame retardant... right?
I know we had this discussion yesterday and I’m probably alone on this one, but I’m on the side of the victim and the courts [from the information given]. In this case, the rescuer was not protected under Good Samaritan Laws because the victim was not in imminent danger and it sounds like the rescuer acted recklessly. Like someone else said, she probably reacted from having seen too many Hollywood movies. Given the fact that she put the victim next to the car, the principle of imminent peril does not seem logical in this case, but rather a “defense” made up later. Absolutely, you should pull someone from a burning car, because they are in imminent danger. Think if you were in this situation and you were in a car accident. All you think you have is maybe a broken arm and some cuts and bruises. It doesn’t seem that there is any threat from a fire. Along comes some Good Samaritan who pulls you from your car “like a rag doll” and you end up paralyzed. How would you feel then? Would you want to sue the person who caused you to be paralyzed instead of just having a broken arm?
In fact, it's already that way in Californicate. Best action is (if uninvolved) to go on by paying attention to your driving (not rubbernecking) and do NOT call 911 or mention to anyone that you saw anything. If asked by anyone, you don't remember seeing anything. If you admit witnessing, you are begging for cop trouble.
The world has gone mad.
I know about Alinsky. And I agree with you.
That jerk wins the Biggest Ingrate of the Year Award. He should be executed immediately (to cancel out the negligence of the Good Samaritan) and California's Health and Safety Code needs to be amended so as to overrule this moronic decision.
What would be useful is some guidance from experts -- EMTs, firefighters, and emergency room MDs, not judges parsing section headings -- on when the risk of fire overrides the risk of moving the victim immediately. My guess would be, if you can smell gasoline, move the victim. But it would be useful to hear from people who know.
What kind of an idiot doesn’t know from 100 TV shows not to move someone who was in a car accident?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.