Posted on 12/19/2008 9:16:55 AM PST by FoxInSocks
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.
<snip>
The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."
Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was "illogical" because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote for the dissenters. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I would refer to this ruling as the “Let them burn” ruling.
I just thought the same. Oh well, guess you will then get sued for not rendering aid.
Yep. Sums it up pretty well.
I guess in CA it’s best just to stare.
>Sounds like an interesting case.
Indeed so.
If there are no "trained professionals" around, are you supposed to leave the person in a burning building or car? That would be consistent with a general view that people cannot do things for themselves unless properly credentialed by the government.
No good deed goes unpunished. If Obama does not destroy this country, lawyers will.
Thanks again, CA courts.
Sounds like a bunch of drunken idiots. Also, it sounds as if the only winners will, as usual, be the tort lawyers. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
Yep, pretty soon we may need a licence to pee.
Well, then I guess that takes care of US being asked to “bail out” the Granola State, then.
Cool beans!
Liberal courts think the right to sue is more important than the right to life.
Next time we see a lawyer burning, throw gasoline on him, no matter how little’s burning.
I would think “staring” would constitute not administering aid. Maybe best to run from an accident witnessed and pray no one saw you. Otherwise you could be sued.
Guess you could be “bent” in either situation.
The formalization of “No good deed goes unpunished”..
Perhaps you have to get the endangered individual to sign a release before you help them.
from AP thread yesterday
Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2151214/posts
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.