Hot Air » Blog Archive » California court holds rescuers liable for injuries
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.
The court has sent a signal to the people of California: don’t get involved. If someone’s drowning, don’t jump in the lake and save them. If someone’s trapped in a car that’s about to explode, sit there and watch the show. Just make a phone call, and who cares that it might be several minutes before an EMS team can make it to the scene? If you sit on your hands, no one can sue you for all you’re worth.
You must place all the responsibility for your life, health, and safety upon the altar of the nanny state. Nobody else is qualified to make these decisions, or take these actions.
I, personally, would love to come across a smoking auto wreck with these “justices” inside, screaming for help. I’d advise them that I had called the state, because when seconds count, the state is only minutes away, and then I would cheerfully watch the bastards burn to death. (via Misha).
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Are you sure it’s safe to call?
The next of kin will and these “justices” will go along with it.
Note that California already has a “good Samaritan” law. In its wisdom (i.e., its blatant pandering to the plantiffs’ bar) the Court decided to narrow its scope. Maybe the legislature should pass it again, adding “AND THIS TIME, WE MEAN IT, DAMMIT!”
Also interesting comment over at Rotty’s, telling what happened when 9th Circuit-style ambulance-chasing encountered Swiss common sense:
Disgraceful, but all too typical. I got my first Red Cross CPR and First Aid certs in NY, back before they broadened their Good Samaritan laws. In those days (the 1980’s), if you saved someone’s life, but your certification was out of date, you could be sued. I suppose the dying would rather die, no?
It gets worse. My instructor, many years previously, had been involved in a situation where he had pulled an unconcious woman from a burning car wreck. Said woman was bleeding from wounds to the face and neck (not arterial or the story would end there, obviously). Instructor was foolish enough to remove metal shards from said wounds in order to bandage them and save her life. He was later sued for “disfigurement” because he wasn’t a properly certified surgeon. He beat the suit, but it cost him a year off from college and a deal of money. Great incentive to go saving lives again, no?
I’ve been known to wish bad karma on idiots who fail to get out of the way of emergency vehicles on our roads here in NJ. They won’t get out of the way of ambulances? I hope someday they’re in such an ambulance, with minutes to live, and some asshole won’t get out of their way. It would be simple justice.
I’ve seen some pull out in front of both ambulances and firetrucks. Ah well, at least EMS will be right there.
What? There’s someone choking in the dining room? Heimlich Maneuver? What’s this you speak of? Call 911, will ya?
Fortunately, In Virginia, the law is quite clear on this:
(emphasis mine)
Now, outside of Virginia?
I was a Boy Scout, and I was taught that there is no greater act than to come to the aid of someone in danger. It was drummed into me over and over that if someone was in distress, it was my duty, as a good citizen and moral human, to attempt to assist them.
Of course, those days were far less litigious.
Would I apply those principles nowadays? I’m not really sure, anymore, unless I explicitly understood the corresponding laws for the jurisdiction in which I resided, or was passing through. It has gotten to the point in our society where it impossible to assist someone without fear of being sued. Many would like to do the good and honorable thing, but when my society sees that as an opportunity to destroy my life in return, then, well; screw that. If I’m traveling around California, and you need some rescuing from me, well, honey; you’re shit outta luck. California has put everyone on notice in that regard.
I’d feel far more comfortable - in fact, no discomfort at all - with placing a tight cluster of rounds into a goblin breaking into my home. But, here again, that’s only because of where I live.
If I saved someone’s life and got sued for it, I’d come around and take back my services. (Ideally in an ironic fashion, but in a pinch, the old “hit them with a blunt object until breathing stops” works.)
This is similar to an old CHIPS episode where Paunch pulled someone out of a car that blew up. He ended up paralyzed and sued Paunch. Well he could have let him blow up in the car. But if Paunch did know basic paramedic skills he could have removed him more gently.
Steven
http://unitedstatesvicepresident.com
I’d never argue against training. If you’re the sort of person who stops to help when you see people in trouble, you should get yourself trained to handle the sorts of trouble you’re going to encounter.
That said, if you’re Johnny-on-the-spot and there’s no time to call for help, you have to roll with what you’ve got. I want our laws and culture to encourage that, not impede it. Someday it might be the life of me or my loved ones in the balance, and I don’t want that chance to slip away because the Good Samaritan was afraid I might sue him.
It will also be interesting to see what happens when some CA idjit traveling in another state tries to sue when someone tries to help them. Maybe we will get lucky and SCOTUS will tell them to FOAD.
The real kicker, according to the comment thread at the Agitator (pre coffee, no linky, use google), and sort of implied by OG, is that they redefined care in an emergency into something that only government officials (fire, police, emt, etc) are capable of giving. This is in contravention of the straight meaning of the law.
Personally, I’m quite comfortable to know that not only does my new state have a Good Samaritan statute in place, it also has a duty to assist statute as well. Normally, government imposed behavior like duty to assist would get my hackles up, but
1)The standard is very low. Trying to call 911 and failing is acceptable.
2)Based on my personal theory that Freedom of Life* > Freedom of Liberty > Freedom to Peruse Happyness, this minor infringement is justified.
3)Suites against duty to assist, as I understand it, rarely win except in the most heinous circumstances (laughing and pointing as a baby drowning, etc). Also, to my uninformed gut says that many failed ones would qualify for lawyers fees.
So yeah, that’s the worst system, except for all the others.
*This is only immediate things that can’t be avoided. If someone points a gun at you and shoots, that’s immediate and can’t be avoided. If someone is smoking in a bar that has these, like totoally authentic Spanish tapas, that’s not.