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 ...
Then the family of the victim will sue the onlookers for not doing anything to save them.
LOL!
And of course 0bama is a lawyer.....
Geesh....Shakespeare was right.
Very good points, thanks.
I’d also argue that it is reasonably foreseeable that a good samaritan would come to the assistance of someone incapacited by an accident, and that any damages caused by the ensuing rescue attempt were the proximate result of the negligence of the original tortfeasor.
I suppose an exception could be made if the rescuer acted recklessly, and that could be a superceding, intervening cause.
Yes, it is mindless entertainment versus real life where you need serious prep to make a car go 'Boom', but that is the idea behind the 'reasonable man' concept. The mind-pictures of pyrotechnic flames are hard to overcome in an emergency and probable screams of shock and pain.
Personally, I expect this case, if it results in the defendant's insurance being tapped, to have insurance policies re-written to disavow 'Good Samaritan' acts. Thus we will throw the baby into the burning car along with the bathwater and the Shysters will look for new angles to exploit!
So if I pull someone’s little boy or girl out of a burning car and he/she gets cut by glass I can be sued because I didn’t wait for “professional” help? Wonderful, just wonderful.
The net result of this lunacy is that no accident bystander will take a chance on doing anything to help a person in an accident. I thought good Samaritans were immune from being sued or charged with a crime.
In some states, the untrained rescuer can sue the “victim” if the rescuer is injured.
On the other hand, a professional firefighter or paramedic, or other such professionals cannot sue a “victim” if they are injured during their rescue attempt. It’s called the professional rescuer doctrine.
There's liablity for that, too.
It's more like the "Accident? What accident?" ruling.
Irrelevant, and now a moot point.
The decision is no longer the samaritan's but the court's.
"You're not medically and legally qualified to render first aid or rescue."
Ummmm.
OK.
In your hypothetical I think it's obvious that you wouldn't be liable for the kid's lacerations. The critical difference in the case posed in the article is that there's a question regarding the necessity of immediately removing the plaintiff from the vehicle.
The defendant has stated she feared fire or an explosion; that's rebutted by statements that she left the plaintiff next to the car. This case has a gray area because of conflicting statements surrounding that action -- and it will fall upon a jury to decide whom to believe.
Nobody wants to get burned (pardon the pun), but if you truly believe you're doing the right thing, you should probably go ahead and do it.
P.S. It's also interesting because California statutes apparently only cover "medical" actions. Does the removal of the plaintiff from the car in this case constitute part of a medical action? Who knows.
“Maybe you do if you’re a woman who really doesn’t have the strenght to carry another person’s dead weight very far. Maybe it took all her strength to get her out of the car.”
There’s a lot that’s isn’t explained in the article. There were five people in the two cars (including the victim). If there’d been any agreement that there was a danger of explosion, the victim could have been moved whatever distance was necessary.
Other information in the article makes it seem like the fear of explosion explanation might have been made up later, and that the rescuer was the only one who thought that danger existed. More info needed for some questions.
“We usually call such people “nerds”.”{
I’d call you a nitwit. Your entire response is little more than an emotional outburst, and doesn’t address any of the really determining factors: why did the rescuer put the victim down “next to the car” if the reason for her instant action was fear of explosion? Did she attempt to communicate with the victim before moving her? What did the other three people present say, or recommend, or do, or not do?
This should have given you a clue about what I really think about government certification for any and every service:
“I don’t care who cuts your hair or does your nails.”
>>why did the rescuer put the victim down “next to the car” if the reason for her instant action was fear of explosion? Did she attempt to communicate with the victim before moving her? What did the other three people present say, or recommend, or do, or not do?<<
The reason your argument looks so foolish is that none of these things should matter. When someone is trying to rescue another, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what was going on in their mind and just how well informed they are. Otherwise you will end up killing thousands by striking fear in the heart of any would be rescuer. Don’t you see that basic point???
“The reason your argument looks so foolish is that none of these things should matter.”
You’re the one who looks foolish. Whether you like it or not, the law at times requires individuals to exercise judgment, even in very difficult situations. So far, the court has ruled that the rescuer did not exercise sufficient judgment. Too bad you can’t grasp that concept. It’s a difficult situation, and it might later be overturned, but anyone on either side of this issue acts like this is some simple, clear cut case is not dealing with reality.
Truely, liberalism is a mental disease.
Total and complete pap. So here we have a bunch of lawyers and a co-called judge sitting in a court room with all the time in the world to parse this woman’s split second decision and this is what they come up with.
Hey, buddy, if I was the only one there to pull you from a burning vehicle I would not do it. That is the result you have achieved with this specious thinking.
I know this because I searched for him for months after and when I finally found him he told me that the reason he did what he did was because nobody did it for his girlfriend's sister and that she was brain damaged. He said he decided he would not let that happen again.
Do you think he would have thought twice if he thought I could sue. I'd say, probably...and I wouldn't be around to tell you this story.
WOW, amazing story. And the paramedics weren’t doing anything?
Not a thing...apparently, they also have a fear of lawsuits. That is what I was told.
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.