TexasCHLforum.com

A divided California Supreme Court ruled that a so-called Good Samaritan can be sued for causing further harm to people that he or she tries to rescue.

In this case, a woman pulled another woman from a crashed vehicle and allegedly worsened a spinal injury.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 3454.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(I loathe the term "Good Samaritan," which has become a cliché for anyone who gives a stranger the time of day. The parable of the Good Samaritan should be viewed in the context of Samaritans being despised by Jesus' audience.)

- Jim

Absolutely unbelievable!

My actual response would violate the 10 year old daughter rule, so I will have to settle for what I posted above.

I wonder if we could give California back to Mexico....

Would Mexico want California?

The flaw in Good Samaritan laws is the element of acting in good faith. That can be subjective. I learned in the Boy Scouts not to move someone with a back injury. There may be times when it is necessary in an emergency, but there are right and wrong ways to do it.

I don't see what the plaintiff in this case expects to get from the defendant. The defendant is probably bankrupt now from legal fees.

The other takeaway in this case is that what you think the law means is not what the law really means. An appeals court decides what it really means, and getting there is very costly.

- Jim

In that case the lady (Good Samaritan) might have moved that other lady (crash victim) in the wreck and permanently paralyzed her...when she didn't need to (not enough info to go on)

You don't move someone in a wreck unless IMMEDIATE life threatening situations exists (burning gasoline, car on tracks - train coming)

The paramedics have tools and are trained to protect people from further injuries..you are not

I do feel that Kalifornia is really messing things up when they make the actions of someone trying to save someone a sue able offense (aka no longer protecting the Good Samaritan from frivilous lawsuits)...because next time the Good Samaritan just may stand back and watch the victim burn!

The next thing we'll be reading from California is a family suing someone for standing by and watching the injured die.

cowboymd wrote:The next thing we'll be reading from California is a family suing someone for standing by and watching the injured die.

I would not be surprised if this has happened.

You don't have to leave home to be sued for failure to render aid. It has happened countless times in every state.

Granted, such lawsuits are usually against first responders, but they have also been brought against private individuals.

Failure to render aid is also a crime in some cases. It is usually filed against hit-and-run drivers.

- Jim

I was wondering about the, "failure to render aid" aspect.

So? I guess the thing to do is honk and try to drive around the accident while looking to neither side?

I've actually rendered aid roadside in California several times, including removing someone from the car in order to do CPR. In that particular case, due care was taken between me and 2 other guys to remove him while holding the head and neck steady, but move him we did. He had massive open head trauma, but he was still breathing when we got to him. He was stuck in a little tiny sports car, and when he stopped breathing and lost his pulse where we could not get at him effectively to do CPR in place, we moved him. We got him restarted several times until a paramedic chopper got to him (this was on the Angeles Crest Highway, in the San Gabriel Mountains above Los Angeles. They called TOD en route. Several years later, I coincidentally met his sister at a party. When she learned that I was the guy who did the CPR, she was grateful that we had at least tried to save him.

Protection from lawsuit under the "Good Samaritan" laws for people who are CPR certified in California was a hallmark at the time for overcoming the objections for liability reasons to getting CPR certified. If these changes remove some of those protections, the attendant consequence will be that fewer and fewer people will obtain, or maintain, their CPR certifications.

The liberal majority in that state (which has had virtually unchallenged power for 40 or more years) has completely ruined the state. I miss California's geographical beauty, and I miss those members of my family who still live there, but I am glad I left, and I'm never going to move back there.

It basically comes down to being protected if you do the right thing, and know what you are doing. The Good Samaritan Law does not negate you being negligent in your actions. If there really was no reason to move her (apparently the car was NOT going to blow up), then she should have been left where she was and waited for EMS. Kinda like if the person was having trouble breathing and you decided to do an emergency tracheotomy because that is what you saw them do on television, but had no idea of what you were doing.

The same thing goes for release waivers when I fly someone. The waiver basically says they won't hold be liable for injuries and they accept the risks that come with flying. However, I have to be doing the right thing. If I am negligent in and cause someone to be injured, the release waiver is worth less than the paper it it written on.

Unfortunately or not, "due care" and "negligence" are charged by a lawyer and decided by the courts. "Good intentions" is too often a spectator in the legal process - alas.

I agree that the state of California is way out of line with this ruling but shouldn't we really be angry with the women who is suing. What type of person sues someone who tried to save their life? What goes around comes around.

Ace_Inthe_O wrote:What type of person sues someone who tried to save their life? What goes around comes around.

Depends on the circumstances for suing. The statement that they had all been out drinking was made. Maybe the individuals who pulled her out were intoxicated?? Maybe she was telling the people not to move her and they didn't listen? We don't know all of the variables.

As for me, I don't care if they think they were trying to save my life, if the person doesn't know what they are doing, then they have no business trying to help other than calling someone who does.

barres wrote: Absolutely unbelievable!

My actual response would violate the 10 year old daughter rule, so I will have to settle for what I posted above.

So you'd kill someone's 10 year old daughter out of spite for this situation?