Tweet
Sooo....should we just leave accident victims to burn/drown/etc. or pull them out?
For reference: here in Michigan we have a very strong 'Good Samaritan' law that does cover civilians at the scene, thank God.
Link....
For reference: here in Michigan we have a very strong 'Good Samaritan' law that does cover civilians at the scene, thank God.
Link....
California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care
The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car 'like a rag doll,' allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury.
By Carol J. Williams
4:54 PM PST, December 18, 2008
In a decision that could give pause to would-be good Samaritans, 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.
Lisa Torti of Northridge now faces trial for allegedly contributing to the injuries suffered by fellow department store cosmetician Alexandra Van Horn, who was rendered a paraplegic in the car crash on Topanga Canyon Road that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
The high court's narrow definition of who qualifies for immunity when coming to the aid of an accident victim drew criticism within its own ranks, with three of the seven justices deeming the ruling "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.
Writing for the majority in the 4-3 ruling, Justice Carlos R. Moreno said the court's primary duty was to determine the Legislature's intent in immunizing from prosecution certain persons whose good Samaritan acts aggravate or inflict injury.
"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," the state's 1980 Health and Safety Code reads.
Because the relevant section is within the code's emergency medical services division, lawmakers probably intended it "to immunize from liability for civil damages only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Moreno wrote.
The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."
In a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the minority deemed "illogical" recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."
Torti, Van Horn and three other co-workers from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m., the justices noted as background.
Van Horn was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Anthony Glen Watson, whom she also sued, and Torti rode in the second car. After Watson's car crashed into a light pole at about 45 mph, the rear car pulled off the road and driver Dion Ofoegbu and Torti rushed to help Watson's two passengers escape the wreckage.
Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."
Neither Torti nor her attorney, Ronald D. Kent, could be reached immediately. Kent's Los Angeles law office said he was in meetings on the East Coast and may not have seen the decision.
Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, disputed the notion that the ruling could have a chilling effect on laymen coming to the rescue of the injured.
Good Samaritan laws have been on the books for centuries and state that "if a person volunteers to act, he or she must act with reasonable care," Hutchinson said.
"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car," he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion "irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.
Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.
Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of the costs of her life care and loss of potential income. Trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year, the lawyer said.
The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car 'like a rag doll,' allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury.
By Carol J. Williams
4:54 PM PST, December 18, 2008
In a decision that could give pause to would-be good Samaritans, 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.
Lisa Torti of Northridge now faces trial for allegedly contributing to the injuries suffered by fellow department store cosmetician Alexandra Van Horn, who was rendered a paraplegic in the car crash on Topanga Canyon Road that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
The high court's narrow definition of who qualifies for immunity when coming to the aid of an accident victim drew criticism within its own ranks, with three of the seven justices deeming the ruling "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.
Writing for the majority in the 4-3 ruling, Justice Carlos R. Moreno said the court's primary duty was to determine the Legislature's intent in immunizing from prosecution certain persons whose good Samaritan acts aggravate or inflict injury.
"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," the state's 1980 Health and Safety Code reads.
Because the relevant section is within the code's emergency medical services division, lawmakers probably intended it "to immunize from liability for civil damages only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Moreno wrote.
The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."
In a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the minority deemed "illogical" recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."
Torti, Van Horn and three other co-workers from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m., the justices noted as background.
Van Horn was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Anthony Glen Watson, whom she also sued, and Torti rode in the second car. After Watson's car crashed into a light pole at about 45 mph, the rear car pulled off the road and driver Dion Ofoegbu and Torti rushed to help Watson's two passengers escape the wreckage.
Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."
Neither Torti nor her attorney, Ronald D. Kent, could be reached immediately. Kent's Los Angeles law office said he was in meetings on the East Coast and may not have seen the decision.
Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, disputed the notion that the ruling could have a chilling effect on laymen coming to the rescue of the injured.
Good Samaritan laws have been on the books for centuries and state that "if a person volunteers to act, he or she must act with reasonable care," Hutchinson said.
"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car," he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion "irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.
Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.
Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of the costs of her life care and loss of potential income. Trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year, the lawyer said.
Comment