Calif. Supreme Court Ruling May Deter Good Samaritans

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Source: law.com

Would-be heroes were warned by the California Supreme Court on Thursday that they could be liable for damages if they inadvertently injure a person while attempting a rescue.

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.

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

---

Stupid, short sighted ruling.

David

[Downtown Hound]

1. It's pretty messed up that anybody would sue someone for trying

to save their life in the first place. But I agree, this is a stupid ruling.

[billyoc]

2. Guess it's safer to watch 'em bleed out.

Oh, well, that's the way it goes.

[vadawg]

3. dumbfrackistan, dumbest thing ive read all day.

another reason never to go to california.

[chucktaylor]

4. Thank God this isn't my State. This is beyond ignorant.

[happyslug]

37. Most state follow the common law rule, which makes such people 100% liable

A second Common Law Rule is that if a statute exists in derogation of the Common law, it must be construed narrowly, and the common law rule survives EXCEPT for the area of the law that the law applies to.

Ohio does have a Good Samaritan Law, but like most states that have passed such laws these tend to be narrowly construed just like the California supreme court did in this case.

Now in states that do NOT have Good Samaritan law, i.e rescuers are 100% liable for any injuries they do to the person they are rescuing. Now juries (and Judges) tend to minimize the cost of such injuries in such situation and in many cases find the rescuer 100% NOT responsible for the injury and thus NOT liable as a issue of fact, but the LEGAL liability is still the law (People are NOT liable for injuries they did NOT cause, thus Juries and Juries tend to make that FACTUAL FINDING and thus no liability, even when the law gives such victims 100% right to sue their rescuers for whatever injuries they incur do to the act of the Rescuer).

Ohio Good Samaritan law:
http://www.ohiobar.org/pub/lycu/index.asp?articleid=474
http://www.cprinstructor.com/OH-GS.htm

One last comment, the state by changing the law from one where the victim can sue his rescuers for acts of the Rescue, to one where such lawsuits are NOT permitted, you are taking away someone's right to recover for damages caused by the rescuer (Remember we are discussing cases where the injury is caused by the rescuer, where just injuries could have been avoided if the rescuer did what he was suppose to do. Remember the law never permitted you to recover damages from someone who did you no harm, only when, do to the negligence of the rescuer, the victim suffered an injury. It is these later cases protected by such statutes and that brings in the concept that the change in law is a taking of property (The Victims health) by someone else (The Rescuers) without compensation and a deny of the right to recover from the person who did the injury. That reaches the constitutional issue, the taking of property without compensation. The courts permit the states to redefine such rights, the state can NOT abolish them. Given this fear most states will narrowly construe these laws to make sure such laws are just redefining conditional rights NOT abolishing them. Remember that is the constitutional question, if it is such a redefinition constitutional but if it is abolishing property rights, then such laws are unconstitutional.

[Hosnon]

50. The ruling is definitely reasonable.

As you noted (along the court), the law prior to any statutory provision was that liability existed in cases where an individual breached his or her duty to exercise reasonable care while attempting to render aid.

The common law rule makes sense because (1) good intentions often produce bad results and (2) unskilled individuals should generally not be doing skilled work.

Here, the California legislature simply carved out an exception to the common law rule. The court determined that the exception is narrow and does not apply in this situation.

The court, in my opinion, ruled appropriately.

[CreekDog]

46. And thank God it's not my...

oh wait...:wtf: :eyes:

[tularetom]

5. There was a time when first responders were liable for injuring a patient while moving him

I was a member of a volunteer fire/EMT group at the time and we were somewhat loosely covered under the county's liability umbrella. We had a meeting with a county risk manager and he told us we were more or less on our own. We could not afford the coverage on our own. Within 6 months half of our group quit. There was a happy ending though in that the county eventually contracted with CDF to provide fire services with a paid company, using our old facilities.

At least in CA the situation used to be worse than it is now.

[Tunkamerica]

6. I think the safest thing, esp. in Calif., is to wait for Tom Cruise

to arrive because when he drives by an accident he knows that he is the only one qualified to help.

[vadawg]

7. lol you owe me a security system and monitors

[ejbr]

8. Not sure if anyone is reading the circumstances of the ruling

The defendant claims that she pulled her friend from the car, grabbing her by the arm and waist, because she feared the car was going to catch on fire. It was determined that the process of moving her caused permanent paralysis. However, witnesses to the accident claim that the defendant pulled the plaintiff only to the side of the car, making fear of fire unlikely, and that she only pulled the plaintiff by her arm, which contributed to her present condition. Also, the EMTs arrived only minutes later.

In her defense, the defendant used the "providing assistance" defense. However, her move was not medical in nature and her statements about the incident appear to be false. Apparently, even the defendant must have questioned her wisdom if she is making things up. I hope this case prevents future "Samaritans" from acting hastily without regard to consequence. If there was no imminent danger, then she had no business moving her friend. Everyone should know this. (I am not involved in medicine and I knew this.)If they don't, this lawsuit may help them appreciate the concept and hopefully prevent another person from becoming paralyzed unnecessarily.

And if anyone would rather let someone die instead of being sued, then I guess they should not trust their judgment.

[LisaL]

10. Frankly why would anyone act at all?

:eyes:

[ejbr]

11. Well,

if the car WAS about to catch on fire, then one should act. If the car was hanging precariously on the edge of a cliff, then one should act. If one knows what they are doing, then one should/may act. One should NOT act because they feel their friend looks uncomfortable in a car crash. Any more questions?

[vadawg]

12. lol why take the chance of the car not catching fire

people are already

[LisaL]

13. Well, how would you know if the car that been in a

crash is about to catch fire or not, unless you are psychic? Can you predict what is going to happen?

[ejbr]

17. No, but apparently, the court

is saying that under these circumstances, you should wait for it to actually catch on fire. Now, I am not claiming that even with what we know the defendant acted improperly, the case will presumably determine this. However, I would assume that you might be a little peeved if your friend unnecessarily paralyzed you for life and then lied about why she/he did it.

On edit: I apologize for being snippy, as I can appreciate the anger and frustration people are having over this ruling.

[LisaL]

18. By all means one should wait for the car to actually catch on fire.

Preferably far away from the car. Because once the car catches fire it goes really fast.
:eyes:

[ejbr]

19. Alright, alright

if you want to paralyze someone by acting prematurely, then go for it. Or, if you would rather watch them die because of your fear of a lawsuit, then who am I to tell you not to.

I am just saying that I am comfortable with this ruling. I am not a medic, but I know that moving someone after an accident should always be a last resort.

[LisaL]

20. Well if I see a car crush whoever is in that car is staying put until

the paramedics arrive.

[ejbr]

21. Fair enough

I, on the other hand, will use my judgment. Considering you are a member of DU, you should give your judgment more credit! ;)

[LisaL]

22. I might be a member of DU, but I am no psychic.

[ejbr]

23. Cheers n/t

[uncle ray]

26. cars don't catch fire that often.

so the fear of a car catching fire is largely unfounded.

unless you live on universal studios backlot. then i'd worry.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. I arrived on the scene of a head on collision one night...

to find one of the cars on fire, with both occupants outside the vehicle thanks to a young hispanic man who couldn't speak english but had 2nd degree burns on both hands from where he pulled the severely injured driver from the vehicle. He left the scene when the police arrived. The passenger compartment was completely involved when we arrived on scene, the driver would have burned to death. It's hard to say what's in someone's mind when they are attempting a rescue.

David

[pipoman]

40. People watch too much TeeVee

in the real world cars very rarely catch fire from an accident...very rarely..

[CreekDog]

47. This isn't an episode of CHiP's

most cars don't just explode into flames everytime there's an accident. :eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. I agree but airbags have complicated the issue.

People don't realize that a chemical reaction triggers the bag, heat and smoke are the results. It is extremely common for people to think the vehicle is about to catch fire. I agree though it is rare that they actually do.

David

[tinrobot]

60. If the car caught fire, would the victim also sue for doing nothing?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Very poor ruling.

[LisaL]

63. No. I don't think the victim could sue bystander for doing

nothing.

[LisaL]

9. Every time some story posted here about bystanders not

helping the victims, posters wonder why bystanders wouldn't help. "Why wouldn't they move that guy off the street after he was hit by a car, etc. " Hello?

[bluestateguy]

14. When I'm in California, I will no longer come to the aid of a stranger anymore

I have to protect myself. I don't have time for lawsuits and neverending legal bills.

[LisaL]

16. I sure as hell am not going to help anyone not related to me.

[Psephos]

36. I will n/t

[Odin2005]

15. Stupid, no, MORONIC ruling.

Christ, this is a Common Law country, our judges are allowed to use common sense...

[pipi_k]

24. Good lord...

What the HELL is going on out there in California lately????

[acmavm]

25. What in the hell is wrong with California????? I mean, Ah-nold is one (big)

thing, but WTF?

[McCamy Taylor]

27. OMG! In the most lawsuit ridden state in the land. Deep pocket books will be the rule.

If they get injured in a drunken car crash that they cause themselves and they have no insurance, they will look around for anyone that was nearby. Watch for wrongful life claims if people are pulled out of bad wrecks and they have permanent injuries---the home owner's policy will be sued.

And bystanders will now have an excuse. "I didn't want to get sued!"

Eeeks!

[scytherius]

28. Speaking as an atty of several decades, this is an utterly absurd ruling n/t

nt

[New_England_Patriot]

29. So when I see a horrible accident, cars on fire, person bleeding to death in the driver seat...

...I won't rescue him in fear of being sued for thousands of dollars for trying to save a person's life.

Whew. I'm glad that's all sorted out. :sarcasm:

[taught_me_patience]

30. I just told my wife that she should NOT help

anybody who appears to need it for fear of lawsuit. She agreed wholeheartedly. It's sad because she a doctor and could actually save lives.

[depakid]

39. You should probably have a look at the actual ruling in the case

as well as the facts surrounding it.

It's not what you think.

[taught_me_patience]

52. The simple threat of a lawsuit is enough.

Don't need that kind of stress in my life... Just avoid the situation.

[LisaL]

53. Sad but true. If the victim ends up with a serious injury, such as

being paralyzed, the damages could be easily in the millions. And who has that kind of money to pay?

[bemildred]

31. I personally, am willng to forgo having dumb, panicky "rescuers" help me.

Either have your shit together or let me die in peace.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. or let you die screaming while burning to death.

[bemildred]

41. Getting two people killed is better?

Your obvious attempt to exploit people's natural revulsion at horrible ways of dying does not affect that fact that people who do not know what they are about are as likely to make things worse as better. They ought at least take a moment to think about what they are doing rather than running around like decapitated chickens. Panic will not serve you well.

[LisaL]

43. And yet every time some case appears where bystanders

did not attempt to rescue the victim, people become outraged and even cry for the bystanders to be charged for not doing anything. Frankly why would anyone do anything, especially considering the potential for being sued? Like the case where the guy gets hit by a car, ends up laying on the road, and bystanders did not drag him off the road.
Well, if bystanders left him on the road, he could have gotten run over by a car again. If somebody dragged him off the road, and he ended up paralyzed, whoever dragged him off could potentially end up being sued. Apparently the best course of action is to leave him on the road and hope he won't be run over again. No?

[bemildred]

45. Call emergency agencies, you know 911?

Then at least think about it before you do something. You may have to defend your actions in court if you don't do the right thing.

Edit: Oh yeah, and disappear into the sunset when the authorities arrive.

[LisaL]

48. Which was done in the case of guy being hit by a car and

laying on the street. But many posters were still outraged that bystanders didn't do more for the guy.
:eyes:

[bemildred]

49. Lots of people like to be outraged.

There is no real solution but to ignore them and get on with things as best you can.

[alarimer]

67. Of course then you might be sued for NOT helping.

I suppose there is precedent for that. I am in favor of calling for help rather than attempting rescue myself.

[LisaL]

68. I doubt you can be liable for not helping someone if you are

just a bystander.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Do you have some statistics for that?

[bemildred]

55. No. If you think thoughtless action based on ignorance will serve you well,

that's fine with me. I'm not really sure how one would go about setting up a randomized double-blind study of that sort of thing anyway.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Nothing quite like personal attacks when you are losing an argument, eh.

I asked for a stat that shows that more people are injured by bystanders helping them than they are helped by bystanders. No one thinks that untrained people should try and decompress the chest of a victim with a tension pneumothorax, I simply don't think that someone, who is seriously trying to help someone that they perceive to be in imminent danger, should be held liable if that persons injuries are somehow worsened by the rescuer. I appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth though, very Bush of you.

David

[bemildred]

57. Seems to work for you. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Didn't like being called on it I see.

[bemildred]

59. Yes, I am deeply troubled now. nt

[LisaL]

33. I don't think you have much to worry about.

Most people are more likely to let you to "die in peace" rather than try to "rescue you," judging by many incidents of bystanders not doing anything to help (and with good reasons, as evident by this ruling).

[bemildred]

42. Bystanders are certainly not a reliable source of help in a crisis.

One cannot even expect to have them around at the right moment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Who said they were? After all that's what they pay people like me for.

It does usually take us about 3 minutes to get to the scene and occasionally that is not in time. In those instances bystanders sometimes help and sometimes they make things worse. The question is should somebody who is honestly trying to help be financially liable when they do make things worse? As a professional rescuer I'm not covered by Good Samaritan Laws, but it would be nice to not bankrupt the good people in society who try to help people.

David

[bemildred]

62. I don't think good intentions get you a free pass.

It is certainly true that the law is sometimes an ass, about these and other things, and that a propensity to be too litigious can be a bad thing, but blanket immunity for rescuers has its drawbacks too.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Okay well we disagree, as do many of the State legislatures around the country.

I would say half of the time I respond to a MVC with airbag deployment someone says the vehicle is on fire because of smoke coming from the airbags, it is very common for people to think that. That's why I don't find the rescuers assertion in this case out of line.

David

[bemildred]

65. Happens all the time (people disagreeing here).

I don't really have a position on the case in the OP, I am content to let the courts decide that. And I'm not against rescuers having some protections from lawsuits that have no merit, or from unfortunate consequences that are demonstrably not their fault, or from ruinous judgments, but I disagree that they should have blanket protection from liability for their actions. In the case of professionals like yourself, as with doctors, I think the use of tort law to correct malpractice is not very effective, and sometimes fraudulently applied; but still an injured party with a good case deserves to be able to seek redress in court.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. I agree in the case of a professional.

I don't believe though a rescuer with good intent should be held liable. Especially considering that it would be personal liability, no insurance company to defend you, no one to assist in your defense. Of course the plaintiff would have to prove proximate cause and clearly the accident in and of itself helps negate that.

David

[bemildred]

66. I would be willing to support something that involved government

assumption of responsibility in these sorts of cases, a combination of generous support for the injured (a free national public health care system would be a start) and regulatory agencies with the teeth to address malpractice etc. In that sort of environment, I could support immunity from tort law for professionals where there is no criminality involved.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. I don't support it for professionals.

We are trained and should have the support of whomever we work for. We should be liable if we act outside our scope of practice or do something negligent and cause or worsen an injury.

David

[bemildred]

71. Thank you for your views. I'll keep them in mind. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Thanks for the lively discussion.

Always good to reach a point of mutual understanding. Please forgive any rudeness on my part.

David

[bemildred]

75. Well this IS the Internet.

Rudeness borders on being mandatory. I've been guilty of being provocative myself from time to time ...
:hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. True.

Easy to get wound up and forget all that we have in common.

David

[MiddleRiverRefugee]

35. They'll need an outreach program. Here's the perfect slogan for it..

LET 'EM DIE -- IT'S THE LAW

[happyslug]

38. Here is the Actual Opinion.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:rZapvpfPvF8J:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S152360.DOC+site:www.courtinfo.ca.gov+Van+Horn+v.+Watson&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Please remember this was an appeal from the Trial Judge's decision on a Motion for Summary Judgment, i.e. a request to dismiss the case on the grounds that the facts any reasonable jury would find. Thus this case is going to be remand to the trial court to hold a hearing.

[doodadem]

44. I know a case.......

My ex-brother-in-law's brother coming home late one night, flipped car over in a ditch. It landed in such a way, that his chest was pinned. A number of on-lookers stood around and watched/heard him pleading for help as the weight of the car slowly crushed his lungs before paramedics could arrive. They said it wouldn't have taken much just to wedge something in there to help take the weight off and keep him breathing.

[LisaL]

51. Obviously a horrible situation.

But if somebody attempted to move the car, and the victim still ended up dead or paralyzed, the rescuer could have ended up in court sued for wrongful death or injury. Obviously the law says the rescuer is not protected from liability in such a situation.

[ACTION BASTARD]

74. Wow KKKalifornia! Hate the gays and hate the good samaritans too?

What the fuck next? Gonna sterilize some Mexican women while your at it?

[JonQ]

77. Perfect!

Now all they need is a "duty to rescue" law like they have in a number of other states. So you would be legally obligated to act in an emergency, as well as 100% liable if anyone in the vicinity gets injured (likely, given that it's an emergency). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Do that and all the trial lawyers in the country will want to move to CA and leave the other 49 states alone.