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 ...
The question is was the victim conscious at the time she was rescued? I don’t want to dissuade anyone from helping their fellow man, but if the victim is conscious, then you have to ask if they need help. If they give you consent, then you are protected from being sued by the person. If they are unconscious or otherwise unable to give consent, then it is implied and the rescuer is protected. Unfortunately, if the victim was conscious and did not give consent to be rescued, the rescuer is not protected under the Good Samaritan Law.
Obviously training occurs as a matter of discovery, trial and error process. By the California argument, research is forbiden and so is education.
This is a ruling for plagiarizers, not for folkes with genuine compassion and the right character who may mess up, but had the right intentions.
The Nazis had similar arguments against folkes with disabilities “who were materialy unfit and bound to mess up”.
Intelligence and good society is not a matter of raw material abilities, but about courage and character and turning the raw to the developed through “suffering through” new problems, instead of waiting for “abilities” or “education” before doing them.
We are turning into an initiativeless slave unconstitutional society.
is the car on fire about to consume the injured...??....and even if not was the victim in such dire pain that he or she was begging the bystander to pull them out of the wreckage...??...
It’s quite possible for someone to worsen an injury by rendering aid. The public should be better educated as to when to render aid. However, the possibility that allowing suits against people who make dumb mistakes when giving aid in emergency situations will do more harm than good is quite real.
People are afraid to give any kind of aid or advice anymore, even to friends, in fear of being sued.
It’s not just the civil realm that’s creating a problem. People no longer come to the aid of crying, alone children in stores or on streets due to concerns of being labeled a molester. Instead of creating a society of educated people that know when to give help, we’re creating a society so dependent on the government and legal system that people are afraid to help others. We’re killing the individual.
Yes, as in “get bent”, “getting bent”, “got bent”, etc. Can be applied to the citizens of the US for the next 4 years.
Mindless.
Does this sound completely backwards to anyone else?
“It is pretty widely known that crash victims should only be moved by professional personnel, and people should follow that advice except in extraordinary circumstances.”
And when was that expert advice given by a professional to the general public? Again, this is sliding the public into the idea that unless a person is government certified they are to do nothing for themselves or others. Totalitarianism.
What if the victim later claims that she never gave consent, but the helper says that she did? When there are no other witnesses, who prevails?
Does this mean that Jerry, Kramer, Elaine and George will be freed from jail?
” If they give you consent, then you are protected from being sued by the person.”
Bad advice. You are obviously not a lawyer. They can still claim the assistance you rendered was not the assistance they expected.
So if I’m in CA and I see someone in a flaming vehicle, I promise I will stand watch and pray over them. Nothing else.
More “stupid judge tricks.”
Damned if you do help and damned if you don't help.
“Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then DROPPED HER NEXT TO THE CAR,” he said, deeming Torti’s assessment of an imminent explosion “irrational” and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.
How many read the entire article? If a fear of an explosion was the real reason, you do not drop the victim next to the car.
This is a tough case, but it is also well known that crash victims should not be moved except by pros due to the risk of further injury.
I’m aware of it, and you are aware of it. I strongly disagree with your assertion, however, that it is “well known.”
"Let Them Burn; Scurry Like Rats" rule. If you see an accident or emergency situation run like hell. Anyone caught in the area will be liable for helping or not helping as the lawyers see fit.
Just when you think liberal insanity has a limit, they prove it wrong once again...
“No good deed goes unpunished. If Obama does not destroy this country, lawyers will.”
Or, more specifically, lawyers who become judges.
“And when was that expert advice given by a professional to the general public?”
Such advice has been given often for years in PSAs, and in interviews and articles by professionals. It’s hardly new information for the moderately well informed.
“Again, this is sliding the public into the idea that unless a person is government certified they are to do nothing for themselves or others. Totalitarianism.”
Okay, and I’ve got some bargain basement specials going on brain surgery and heart surgery. Got some good kitchen knives. Let me know if you require any such surgery.
And moving a person injured in a crash very much fits into the category of a critical medical situation. And, again, the fact that the rescuer put the victim down next to the car does make it look like a rash action.
I don’t care who cuts your hair or does your nails.
This is liberal “justice” for you.
They want the “victim” to be able to reach the rescuer’s insurance money, so they turn teh rescuer into a wrondoer and very possibly kill other victims because folks will be afraid to help in the future.
Also, what standard of negligence would apply to a non-medical person who tries to help? Who could possibly know how to balance medical risk versus exploding car risk?
It’s amazing how ambulance chasers and their supporters* can treat people as “moderately well informed” when it means supporting a lawsuit but then are also able to turn right around and treat them like idiots when it supports a lawsuit, and the courts not only allow it, but embrace it. Which is it? Are people idiots or not?
*I’m not referring to all lawyers here.
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.