Posted on 12/21/2008 5:29:32 PM PST by John Semmens
The California Supreme Court ruled that Lisa Torti of Northridge may be held liable for injuries to a woman she pulled out of a vehicle following a Halloween night crash in 2004. Combined with previous rulings holding that individuals may be held liable for not helping in such situations, persons finding themselves at accident sites are faced with a legal dilemma.
If no assistance is rendered, the passerby may be sued for damages occurring from his neglect to intervene. If assistance is rendered, the intervener may be sued for any damages caused by the intervention.
The Court ruled that the state’s Samaritan immunity law applies only to “medical type” assistance, like CPR, application of bandages, or the charging of excessive fees or padded bills.
“Accident victims have already suffered,” wrote Judge Peter Pettifogger for the Court. “Some means of compensation to try to balance the scales is our social responsibility. Those whom chance has thrown into the mix must be our first line of defense. If such persons have the means it is our duty to appropriate them.”
Pettifogger advised those unwilling to face responsibility for damages to “flee the scene before they are recognized or can be identified. Society has trained professionals for these situations. We must be confident that sooner or later, these trained professionals will arrive to take the appropriate action.”
(Excerpt) Read more at azconservative.org ...
That’s par for the course.
Good grief, this is right out of Atlas Shrugged!
So just because I happen to be near some sod that has drunken themselves into a stupor then gotten behind the wheel and injured themselves (and possibly others)... If I have "the means" this a-hole judge feels it is right to appropriate them? Am I mis-reading this trash?
"Some means of compensation to try to balance the scales is our social responsibility." ??? I always check my wallet when someone starts talking about "social responsibility." Here's a hint judge - you cannot legislate responsibility.
Pettifogger advised those unwilling to face responsibility for damages to “flee the scene before they are recognized or can be identified. Society has trained professionals for these situations. We must be confident that sooner or later, these trained professionals will arrive to take the appropriate action.”
I can guaran-damn-tee you I'm not going to CA anymore unless I absolutely have to for work. What an F-d up state. Meanwhile, the accident victim that may have lived from simple first aide bleeds-out, or goes into shock, or burns to death. Nice job judge, hope you sleep well at night.
I'm beginning to think we were better off with King George instead of the army of attorneys and judges we have.
Cursed be so many Kings in one Kingdom.
I’m going to sue you for unnecessarily raising my blood pressure. }8-(
Yes and several years ago I did this I pulled kids out of a car that had a fire under it..the driver fell asleep at the wheel and the other car was down a ditch. Another driver came by and put the fire out and left. I tried to get the mother out but she was so large and had a compound fracture of her leg so I held the door as shut as I could to keep her from falling out of the car. It was a heart stopper for sure.
About 18 years ago I stopped at the scene of an accident, within a minute of its happening, where a woman was trapped in the cabin of an overturned pickup truck. I encouraged the others there to wait till the volunteer fire depart came and let them remove the woman who didn't appear to have any immediately life threatening injuries. She probably wouldn't have been trapped if she had worn a seat belt. Another passenger in my car noticed a man (an illegal alien based on his minimal knowlege of English) smoking a cigarette on the other side of the highway. While there was no fire in or near the overturned pickup, I did smell gasoline fumes. I went over to the man and got him to put out his cigarette. The dumb thing was he put it out on the ground where gasoline vapor is most likely to settle.
Fortunately the fire department arrived quickly and were able to extract the woman safely from the truck.
Amazing!
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.
What was not reported was that they also said that those who voted yes really need to get their heads out of their as*.
Just stay in the house, never leave your own property.
It’s the only way to remain safe.
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.