http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426887859

Quote :

"In a 4-3 ruling, the high court held that a state statute immunizing rescuers from liability applies only if the individual is providing medical care in an emergency situation. It doesn't apply when Good Samaritans accidently cause injuries while, for example, pulling someone out of a burning house or diving into swirling waters to save a drowning swimmer. "After all," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the majority, "if the 'scene of an emergency' ... means a scene where 'an individual has a need for immediate medical attention' ... it logically follows that the Legislature intended for the phrase 'emergency care' ... to refer to the medical attention given to the individual who needs it.""

Honestly, I can't think of anything to say to that, the level of retardation exceeds even a Salisburyboy thread.

12/20/2008 9:23:11 AM

When I read your quote before clicking your link, my first thought was it was probably designed to deter dumbasses from doing something stupid. Lo and behold that is exactly what it was designed for

Quote :

" The case was spawned by a botched rescue attempt by Lisa Torti, who pulled a friend, Alexandra Van Horn, out of a wrecked car in the Los Angeles area on Halloween night of 2003. Torti claimed she saw smoke and thought the car was about to explode. Van Horn was left a paraplegic, and blamed Torti's efforts to help her. She sued Torti and Anthony Watson, the driver of the wrecked car, for negligence."

I really don't know what to say about the law. I'd rather see it written in some way such that frivolous lawsuits don't happen, but I have a feeling that it won't see action in court anyway unless it's really need, like situations mentioned. I imagine it will be exceedingly rare the occurrence that someone is about to die in a burning building will end up suing their rescuer because said individual did some sort of harm to them in the rescue.

12/20/2008 9:29:57 AM

Quote :

"When I read your quote before clicking your link, my first thought was it was probably designed to deter dumbasses from doing something stupid. Lo and behold that is exactly what it was designed for"

Right, but there are other ways to deal with that. Namely eliminating the immunity in the event of unreasonably negligent behavior, not eliminating the immunity because it isn't "medical assistance". In this case, the could (and should) have used the same thing they use to decide self defense cases, would a reasonable person, with the same training, in the same situation have acted the same or made the same assumptions?

Besides, you can't deter a dumbass, they just keep coming. What you can do is deter reasonably intelligent people from acting out of fear that they will be sued.

12/20/2008 9:58:42 AM

I read about this yesterday, and my first reaction was similar to the OP.

They were all (probably) drunk at the time. The car wasn't smoking. The car wasn't on fire.

Good samaritan laws don't allow you to act in an unreasonable or unsafe manner, which is what this woman did when she pulled the other woman from the car.

The court's decision sounds bad, but I won't be worried until there's a successful lawsuit for injuring someone while removing them from an actual greater danger.

[Edited on December 20, 2008 at 10:12 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2008 10:06:01 AM

Aren't there states that have laws that require you to help people in emergency situations?

If combined with this law...you're gonna lose either way.

12/20/2008 11:01:29 AM

like i needed any more incentive not to help people

12/20/2008 11:14:54 AM

Quote :

"Aren't there states that have laws that require you to help people in emergency situations?"

You're talking about Duty to Rescue laws. California doesn't have them and generally they're anachronistic anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

As to this case: totally agree with the ruling. The point of providing immunity in the case of medical care is that good samaritans, by definition, are not medical professionals (as the latter have a duty to rescue -- see above). I don't see why anything else -- body dragging, etc. -- should fall outside the normal scope of tort law.

Quote :

"What you can do is deter reasonably intelligent people from acting out of fear that they will be sued."

I don't see why the law should restrict people's ability to sue when they feel wronged except for very specific reasons. You're just biased because of some reflexive belief that all lawsuits are bad.

[Edited on December 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM. Reason : foo]

12/20/2008 3:02:53 PM

So if you get into a jam - yell out "Help! Help! I WON"T SUE YOU!"

You might want to carry some claim release forms on you in case you have an emergency requiring someone's help.

12/20/2008 11:50:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't see why the law should restrict people's ability to sue when they feel wronged except for very specific reasons. You're just biased because of some reflexive belief that all lawsuits are bad."

Not at all, I just feel the ruling was overly broad and sets the wrong precedent. California has a law that provides immunity to those that render aid in an emergency. That it applies to normal people and not just medical folk is not in question. However, instead of deciding there should be a limit to that immunity in the case of gross negligence (which I whole heartedly support), the courts have instead decided that that immunity only applies to medical aid and not other types of aid. So again, if you were in danger, a good samaritan is liable for any injuries you sustain while they attempt to get you out of harms way, but not for any you obtain while they attempt to provide medical aid after the fact. So if they break your arm pulling you out of say a machine your clothing got caught in, they're liable for that, but if you lose your other arm because they used a tourniquet to stop the bleeding, they aren't liable for that.

12/21/2008 12:27:56 AM

Quote :

"So if they break your arm pulling you out of say a machine your clothing got caught in, they're liable for that, but if you lose your other arm because they used a tourniquet to stop the bleeding, they aren't liable for that."

How do you know what people are liable for? Are you a lawyer?

12/21/2008 11:19:17 AM

so if someones house is burning down, I shouldn't call the emergency 911 line because it clearly isn't a scene of an emergency?

12/21/2008 1:09:01 PM

if you don't know how to do everything possible to keep me from becoming a paraplegic as you're saving me, i don't really want to be saved by you

12/21/2008 1:36:47 PM

California Sucks, I hope it breaks off and sinks into the Pacific

12/21/2008 4:57:09 PM

Quote :

"How do you know what people are liable for? Are you a lawyer?"

Look, I know you've got a hard on about giving me shit this past week or so, but seriously do I really fucking have to be a lawyer to look at a court decision, the dissenting opinion, and an article about the court decision and provide a possible outcome based on similar examples as outlined in the dissenting position and article?

I mean, I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty fucking sure that if you go out a shoot some guy on the street, you're going to be liable for his death. But I guess since I'm not a lawyer, you ought to try it and let us know how it turns out.

Quote :

"if you don't know how to do everything possible to keep me from becoming a paraplegic as you're saving me, i don't really want to be saved by you"

An understandable position, but as I said, I don't think this decision properly addresses that, what you're talking about is grievous harm due to gross negligence, what the court decision is talking about is any harm caused by "non-medical" assistance. As I said, I think it's too broad of a ruling for the case at hand.

12/21/2008 7:57:45 PM

Quote :

"Look, I know you've got a hard on about giving me shit this past week or so, but seriously do I really fucking have to be a lawyer to look at a court decision, the dissenting opinion, and an article about the court decision and provide a possible outcome based on similar examples as outlined in the dissenting position and article?"

As an observer of your clowning this weekend by Smoker4, I'm going to go with yes. It gets really annoying knowing every time I see your name by a post, it's going to be the same tired Libertarian politics you're well known for by now just slapped onto any situation that you deem governing or against the individual and their desire to just do whatever the fuck they please. We get it, and we're bored by it, especially when you get clowned by someone that is actually attempting to have a debate with you and you run away (see, other thread) only to whine about it in another thread (see, this thread).

12/21/2008 9:13:30 PM

Yeah, because thinking that a court ruling was over reaching and too broad for the question it should have been answering is such a libertarian ideal. I mean, heaven forbid a person should disagree with the way a court tried to resolve a legitimate issue. It can't be that he thinks there was a better and more direct way to solve that issue, no it must be that he's a libertarian kook who's hell bent on ensuring that when he sees you in danger, he can drag you down the street tied to a pickup truck and sever a couple limbs and claim he was protecting you and get away scott free.

Besides, if we're talking about same old tired politics, you're hardly a breath of fresh air around here.

12/21/2008 9:24:48 PM