CA law now allows good samaritans to be sued.

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
74 replies · 9K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course CA law allows good samaritans to be sued -- and it should. Lots of bad things can be done with good intentions.

The relevant question is whether or not this good samaritan did something that merits being sued.
 
Hurkyl said:
Of course CA law allows good samaritans to be sued -- and it should. Lots of bad things can be done with good intentions.

The relevant question is whether or not this good samaritan did something that merits being sued.

And lots of bad things can happen when you make people too afraid to help.



Oh you want me to help you out of that burning car wreckage? Wait hold on, can you sign this waiver for me first?
 
Hurkyl is absolutely right: people need to be held responsible for their actions. Proper motivation should not absolve someone of responsibility for causing unnecessary harm.
Oh you want me to help you out of that burning car wreckage? Wait hold on, can you sign this waiver for me first?
In this particular case, if the car had been on fire, it may have helped the good samaritan's case.
 
Did they prove that the victims injuries are substantially worse because of being rescued? Spinal injuries are so tricky I don't know how thay can say with any certainty which specific injuries were the result of being rescued unless the woman had been medically examined before being moved. Even then, people are medically examined and given a clean bill of health then the person exibits symptoms anyway.
 
It's a little different up here. I have friends in Emergency Services who told me something that surprised me. If an off-duty paramedic comes across an accident, s/he isn't allowed to do anything because they could be held responsible for an inadvertent injury. Civilians are immune; any honest attempt to help someone absolves them from responsibility. It's because they aren't expected to know what's best for someone.
 
russ_watters said:
Hurkyl is absolutely right: people need to be held responsible for their actions. Proper motivation should not absolve someone of responsibility for causing unnecessary harm. In this particular case, if the car had been on fire, it may have helped the good samaritan's case.

So basically, the samaritan should have waited until the car was on fire to act accordingly. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

If a reasonable person could assume that a car is about to catch fire after an accident then why should they have to wait until the fire actually happens?
 
gravenewworld: just so we can be clear on your thought process, would you state whether agree or disagree with the following statement?
Any person who acts with good intentions should be absolved from the consequences of any damage they cause to a person or to property (or any other crime they may commit)​

Note: disagreement with the above statement does not mean that you believe this particular good samaritan should be held liable.
 
You're supposed to ask "Are you okay? Do you want my help?" first before doing anything.

Except that this isn't always possible. I saw a girl on a bike get hit by a bus that was trying to pass her (I know, wtf?). The girl fell, but was conscious. I ran up to her and asked her if she is alright, but she just ignored me and started walking to the bus driver (who had stopped after he realized what happened).

When in shock there is no telling what someone will do. They can just not respond and then later say "I never told you to help me!", or they can agree to your help and then say "I was in shock! I had no idea what I was doing!"

I know you always watch out for spinal injuries first, so you never move a person unless absolutely necessary. But she didn't know that apparently. So what is "reasonable" care for me isn't "reasonable" care for her.

The kicker here is that if you just stand by and watch someone die because you are afraid of getting sued you get called a monster, but if you help and get sued you are told to deal with it.
 
From gravenewworld's link:
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."
With smoke and liquid, is this perhaps excused action?

Edit: On the other hand, this is testimony after the fact.
 
Even under the existing law you could be sued if you were a professional.
I was a diving instructor in CA and we were advised that if there was an accident on a boat/beach where we were present we would be sued - even if the person was not our responsibility. Thats why all diving instructors used to carry beginner PADI cards.

The CA law only limited your liability if you provided care that a reasonable person might expect - you could still be sued if you did something deliberately stupid. Now you can be sued if you provide other than the legally defined care - so if you are an out of state doctor who saves someones life in a car crash but you don't use CA standard protocol you will be sued.

This will lead to a loss of life. In the UK the panic against child molesters and the CCTV cameras everywhere means that most adult males will cross the road to avoid a lost or injured child.
 
Last edited:
My wife was a licensed RN in CA. She says that a RN or MD can be sued for NOT stopping to help. But they are only required (allowed!) to help within the limited of their license. They are protected if they act within the limit of their license. This applies to other people also. However, since most of us don't have rescue or medical licenses, most people's responsibility (and scope of action) is limited to calling the proper authorities. Of course if there is a vehicle fire then any reasonable judge will throw a sue case out. However, thinking that it might catch on fire is not good enough to keep you from being sued.
 
gravenewworld said:
So basically, the samaritan should have waited until the car was on fire to act accordingly. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
...not? You're arguing against a known outcome! This isn't hypothetical, it actually happened! The car was not on fire and the victim is paralyzed! We know that moving her was a mistake!
If a reasonable person could assume that a car is about to catch fire after an accident then why should they have to wait until the fire actually happens?
A reasonable person would assume a car would catch fire? Really? I recognize that people believe what they see in movies, but that doesn't make it any less wrong: cars do not typically catch fire after a crash. It is actually exceedingly rare.

You're not thinking rationally here. This sounds bad to you, so you consider it bad. Put some thought into it. Try to connect some logic (answer Hurkyl's question). You'll realize it doesn't work.
 
OAQfirst said:
From gravenewworld's link:

With smoke and liquid, is this perhaps excused action?

Edit: On the other hand, this is testimony after the fact.
That's probably pretty important to the ruling in this case. I'm guessing since the other people involved testified they didn't see it, it was decided that the risk was not credible.
 
russ_watters said:
A reasonable person would assume a car would catch fire? Really? I recognize that people believe what they see in movies, but that doesn't make it any less wrong: cars do not typically catch fire after a crash. It is actually exceedingly rare.
A reasonable person is basically defined as an idiot.
Ordinary people DO assume that cars immediately burst into flames because that is what is seen on TV. All it needs is for the person to believe that the car is about to explode for it to be justified.

Remember these are the same reasonable people that ban Wifi from schools and buy bottled water because tap water has chemicals in it.
 
mgb_phys said:
A reasonable person is basically defined as an idiot.
Ordinary people DO assume that cars immediately burst into flames because that is what is seen on TV. All it needs is for the person to believe that the car is about to explode for it to be justified.
No. Ordinary and reasonable are not the same thing. Just because ordinary people are idiots, that does not absolve them of the responsibility to be reasonable.
 
http://kotaku.com/5044866/grand-theft-auto-helps-preteen-save-familys-lives
A girl dragged her parents out of a flipped car because she knew from playing Grand Theft Auto that crashed cars explode. Naturally it didn't but she becomes a hero.

I can't find any figures but I would bet that a majority of non-specialists believe that a crashed car is likely to explode. If the majority believe that does it become reasonable behaviour?
 
Reasonable =/= excusable. You can say it's excusable that she thought it would catch on fire because of TV, but that still doesn't make it reasonable.
 
WarPhalange said:
Reasonable =/= excusable.
Reasonable in this case has a very specific legal meaning - I was just wondering if the majority of the population believed it to be true does that make the behaviour reasonable?
 
JasonRox said:
America

Everyone for themselves.
:confused: Willful misinterpretation of what we're saying? How would you feel if some well-meaning idiot did something stupid and crippled you for life? That's what such laws are meant to protect you from.

(I do not assert that the case in the original post involved a well-meaning idiot doing something stupid)
 
A well-meaning idiot probably won't know about a law like this and will do something stupid anyway. So I don't think this will act as a deterrent of these kinds of events.

You could at least get something out of it, yes. I don't know how many people will be satisfied with money, but I guess it's better than nothing.
 
WarPhalange said:
A well-meaning idiot probably won't know about a law like this and will do something stupid anyway.
Thus the benefit of the media picking up such stories -- to educate the common man!
 
Hurkyl said:
:confused: Willful misinterpretation of what we're saying? How would you feel if some well-meaning idiot did something stupid and crippled you for life?

I would feel grateful that the aforementioned idiot cared enough to try. It would bother me a lot more to see people standing around doing nothing.
 
You just need people to be afraid of the consequences of helping someone

A two year old girl drowned in a pond, a man had seen here wandering by the pond on her own but hadn't stopped to help because he was afraid of being accused of being a paedophile. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...l&sSheet=/education/2006/03/25/ixteright.html

Remember this is in a country where paediatrician's houses are burned down by mobs who obviously didn't do latin at school.
 
Hurkyl said:
:confused: Willful misinterpretation of what we're saying? How would you feel if some well-meaning idiot did something stupid and crippled you for life? That's what such laws are meant to protect you from.

(I do not assert that the case in the original post involved a well-meaning idiot doing something stupid)

Even if a person is not an idiot, has the training and knows how to help, he/she will not help because of the liability. As an non-idiot he/she knows that he/she may make a little mistake by accident while helping. Therefore no rational person will help anyone anymore and result is everyone for themselves.
 
misgfool said:
Even if a person is not an idiot, has the training and knows how to help, he/she will not help because of the liability. As an non-idiot he/she knows that he/she may make a little mistake by accident while helping. Therefore no rational person will help anyone anymore and result is everyone for themselves.
Pointing out problems with one extreme doesn't negate the problems with the other extreme.
 
For many years in my state, good Samaritans can be sued. What I have seen is people doing good, and quickly leaving the area. They are even encouraged to leave by the first responding party to arrive. The laws here did not discourage people from helping out when they could.
 
mgb_phys said:
If the majority believe that does it become reasonable behaviour?
Certainly not! Yikes, how could you think such a thing!? What are you doing posting on a science forum if you believe that?!
 
misgfool said:
Even if a person is not an idiot, has the training and knows how to help, he/she will not help because of the liability. As an non-idiot he/she knows that he/she may make a little mistake by accident while helping. Therefore no rational person will help anyone anymore and result is everyone for themselves.
Someone who is trained should also be trained to know the limits of the care they are allowed to provide and act accordingly, mitigating the potential for liability.

In the specific case we are discussing, such a person would not have pulled the woman from the car, because s/he would have known that it was the wrong course of action.

Again, note that we are discussing a case with a known outcome. We're also discussing a hypothetical with a known likelihood: if people never act to yank people out of a car unless the flames are already licking the window, that's a good thing because it is so rare that cars actually burst into flames.