Topic: "Good samaritan?" Think twice in Kalifornia

[Hubby_MC]

The Perils of Being a Good Samaritan in California
By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2009

The Supreme Court of California has ruled that one good deed may very well not go unpunished — unleashing a debate not only on who is a Good Samaritan but who shouldn't even think about being one. On Dec. 19, the court made a decision in the case of Alexandra Van Horn v. Lisa Torti. The case alleged that Torti worsened the injuries suffered by Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from a wrecked car on Nov. 1, 2004, thus rendering Van Horn a paraplegic. The court found that Torti wasn't protected from legal action under California's current Good Samaritan laws.

Those laws were set in place in 1980, when the state legislature enacted Health and Safety Code 1799.102, which provides that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission." However, in its sharply divided 4-3 ruling, the high court held that the state statute immunizing rescuers from liability applies only if the individual is providing medical care in an emergency situation, citing the statute's placement in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services. Torti, who is not a health care worker, believed she was acting as a concerned friend.

"Miss Torti is disappointed by the ruling and we do think it will have negative repercussions here in California," says Torti's attorney, Jody Steinberg. "How it will affect the rest of the country, whether they will follow the Supreme court's ruling is yet to be seen." Steinberg warns: "Here in California one of these days we can have another earthquake and the question is do you want people to help or do you want people to be thinking about whether they're going to get sued." Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, did not return several calls for comment. Steinberg has requested that the Supreme Court rehear the case. It will decide whether or not to do so by March. (See a story about lawsuit abuse.)

In response to the ruling, Republican state Sen. John Benoit of Riverside, Calif. proposed a bill on Jan. 6 that would extend the statute to include all emergency services rendered at the scene of an emergency, regardless of who performs the deed. "I spent 31 years in law enforcement and as a highway patrol officer I responded to many, many, many accidents. I was not the first one there. Someone had helped a victim out of the car, out of the traffic lane, administered CPR," says Benoit. "I immediately, upon hearing about this case, was extremely concerned that it would in any way thwart people's willingness to give that aid because in my experience that would translate into lives lost." (See a story about California's looming crisis.)

The proposed legislation, SB 39, would enact the Good Samaritan Protection Act, which would amend the current statute to define "emergency care" as "medical or nonmedical." Referring to the current Good Samaritan statute, Benoit says, "If in fact the intention was just to limit it to medical providers providing medical care, that was too narrow [a piece of legislation] in my estimation and this case shows it. I don't believe that was really the intent, even if it is in fact the way it's been interpreted. If not, it needs to be changed. We need to clarify that and I thought let's move quickly and clarify it." Such proposed legislation would not be retroactive and would have no impact on the ruling in the Torti-Van Horn case. (See a story about Good and Bad Samaritans.)

Some legal experts, however, argue that the proposed reform is a bad idea. University of Southern California law school professor Michael Shapiro feels that expanding the current statute to immunize not just medical personnel but the general public would be a mistake. "I would not favor a law that says, 'Hey, if someone wants to rescue people, let them do it, just don't stop them deliberately and if they botch it up and if they're careless and stupid, fine,'" says Shapiro. "I don't think that's a good state of affairs. I think a lot of people would be made worse off."

Shapiro says the message of the Torti-Van Horn case is not "don't rescue because if anything happens to the person you're liable." Those who choose to rescue people were always protected under common law, he points out, provided they act with due care. "If you wanted to rescue somebody, you can go rescue somebody even if you are not a doctor, but if you are negligent and the person is hurt, you're going to be liable," says Shapiro. "Negligent means unacceptably careless. It's not that big of an obligation to put on people not to act in a way that is unacceptably careless even when you're rescuing someone."

Indeed, in its decision, the Supreme Court made reference to common law principles, saying "a person has no duty to come to the aid of another. If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care. Thus, a 'Good Samaritan' who attempts to help someone might be liable if he or she does not exercise due care and ends up causing harm."

Torti's lawyer Steinberg says he and his client aren't counting on the California high court rehearing the case. Says Steinberg: "It's certainly not common that the Supreme Court reverses its decision." If the court decides to let its judgment stand, he says, the civil suit will most likely commence in August or September. Steinberg's defense strategy will focus then on whether his client acted reasonably under the circumstances and whether Van Horn's injuries were caused by the accident itself or when she was moved.

[NGO]

Yup, and the next decision rendered will be against the poor smuck who decides not too render aid and the injured party dies or gets worse and sues because the person didn't help....


So welcome to the new America where we don't have principles carved in stone anymore and what is right today, may not be right tomorrow, because how ones "FEELS" may be different tomorrow!

[fj40mojo]

"no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."

Doesn't this "and not for compensation" encompass passers by rendering aid and not limit the legislation to just health care workers?  As I understand the case Torti was a personal friend of the plaintiff following her home from a bar.  She's got some big brass ones to sue her own friend for saving her ass!

[WTF]

probably best to carry a couple copies of a liability waiver in your first aid kit, have them sign and date it, then render aid before the burning vehicle engulfs them. just hope they sign it fast if they want help!

But if I see Commiefornia plates, it will suck to be them!

[9Shooter]

"Doesn't this "and not for compensation" encompass passers by rendering aid and not limit the legislation to just health care workers?  As I understand the case Torti was a personal friend of the plaintiff following her home from a bar.  She's got some big brass ones to sue her own friend for saving her ass!

The way I read that was not from the standpoint of a paid emergency worker but more like someone looking for reward.  So, in good faith and not looking for a reward for helping.  Now that I type it out though, either way you look at it, it seems to cover the friend.

[fj40mojo]

Being a First Responder in the past and now a nurse, we use what is called assumed/implied consent.  For expample, you come across an unconscious individual who is obviously having some kind of medical emergency-assumed/implied consent allows you to assume that someone of sound mind would consent to medical treatment.  If they aren't unconscious yet and refuse tx you wait till they are unconscious and then assume that they would consent to tx.  Cali is one f'd up place if they grant a settlement to this idiot.  They have a law on the book that protects the defendant, now they need to stop feeling sorry for the dumbass that f'd herself up driving home from the bar and follow the legislation that is on the books.  What happened to common sense for crap's sake!

[9Shooter]

California != Common Sense

[e11charlie]

probably best to carry a couple copies of a liability waiver in your first aid kit, have them sign and date it, then render aid before the burning vehicle engulfs them. just hope they sign it fast if they want help!

But if I see Commiefornia plates, it will suck to be them!

That is a great idea.  "Sign here here and here,  and I will need to see some kind of identification.  And if you can wait till I get the background check done to see if you are worth saving.  Dont want to go saving someone who pollutes the gene pool now."  "Well it looks as though your back ground check came back. It seems that you are a convicted felon so if you dont mind I am just going to stand back and watch you burn. Have a pleasent day  "   

[SNAFU]

That is a great idea.  "Sign here here and here,  and I will need to see some kind of identification.  And if you can wait till I get the background check done to see if you are worth saving.  Dont want to go saving someone who pollutes the gene pool now."  "Well it looks as though your back ground check came back. It seems that you are a convicted felon so if you dont mind I am just going to stand back and watch you burn. Have a pleasent day  "   

Polite way of telling someone that you dislike them so much that you wouldn't even take a leak on them if they were on fire....