CA law now allows good samaritans to be sued.

[mgb_phys]

The real problem is the ridiculous legal system that treats accidents as winning the lottery.
Introduce fixed tariffs for various injuries (like the ones the insurance companies already use) and stop the overblown 'mental anguish' payments.

Because of this it makes sense to sue everybody remotely involved wether they did the right thing or not.

 

[misgfool]

If the car was in flames after pulling the victim out, the rescuer could claim to have saved the victims life for sure.

Er... do you really intend to say that such laws cannot possibly work in principle, or are you asserting the current law doesn't work?

I don't know/understand what is the ultimate purpose of these laws, so I don't know are they working as intended. I can only try to reason how they are guiding people to act.

It's rather unenlightening when nobody does anything but merely assert their opinion. Can you actually put some force behind it?

What kind of force are you looking for?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

From what I have heard in the news Torti was supposedly drunk and possibly stoned when the accident occured. It's a tough call. She apparnently believed she was doing the right thing and helping her friend but she was clearly not in her right mind at the time. One of the major points for the prosecution was that although Torti states she believed the car was going to blow up she removed her friend only to place her on the ground next to the vehicle.

The problem is the ruling. This clarification of the good samaritan law means you can render medical aid and not worry about liability but anything else places you at risk. If you see someone drowning you can safely perform CPR without liability. On the other hand if you inadvertantly injure the person while removing them from the water you can be sued because that is not medical aid. And perhaps there is no need for medical aid or if there is its beyond the abilities of a layperson. Perhaps the best that can be done is to remove the person from a life threatening situation. And now any person who helps them is liable for any injuries suffered as a consequence of their actions regardless of whether or not they saved the person's life.

Essentially the courts have given those who suffer misfortune license to potentially pass the burden on to any hapless fool who attempts to help them. Remember: Any lawyer prosecuting such a case need not prove medically that the rescuer was negligent, they only need to convince twelve idiots unable to dodge jury duty.

A better decision by the courts likely would have been to say that in cases of extreme negligence a person may be stripped of protection by the good samaritan law. This could protect victims from idiots attempting to perform emergency medical aid, even though they have no idea what they are doing, and still protect "good samaritans" from liability in cases not involving medical aid.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

The real problem is the ridiculous legal system that treats accidents as winning the lottery.

That is the problem right there. Everyone thinks that if they get hurt all they have to do is sue and then get money for it. The *circumstances* of the injury are not even considered. There is a HUGE difference between someone who unintentionally cripples somebody trying to pull them out of a burning car to save their life, and someone who wants to cripple somebody because they dislike that person and want to see them suffer. Yet, the "I deserve a payout" mentality doesn't take any of this into consideration.

I remember when I found out that my eye injury was due to a poor perscription made by my eye doctor that led to a poor pair of glasses that caused the injury. When I found out I switched to a different doctor. A lot of people asked why I didn't sue. Why? Because it was *obvious* to me that he didn't do it on purpose. He spent nearly 1/2 hour going through the tests over and over again trying to get it right, the perscription came out bad because the equipment was poor, or that my eyes were weird enough that he lacked the skill to deal with them. I would have treated the situation differently if I found out that he had tried to hurt me, because he was jealous of something I had (of my nerdy beauty perhaps? :!).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That is the problem right there. Everyone thinks that if they get hurt all they have to do is sue and then get money for it. The *circumstances* of the injury are not even considered. There is a HUGE difference between someone who unintentionally cripples somebody trying to pull them out of a burning car to save their life, and someone who wants to cripple somebody because they dislike that person and want to see them suffer. Yet, the "I deserve a payout" mentality doesn't take any of this into consideration.

I remember when I found out that my eye injury was due to a poor perscription made by my eye doctor that led to a poor pair of glasses that caused the injury. When I found out I switched to a different doctor. A lot of people asked why I didn't sue. Why? Because it was *obvious* to me that he didn't do it on purpose. He spent nearly 1/2 hour going through the tests over and over again trying to get it right, the perscription came out bad because the equipment was poor, or that my eyes were weird enough that he lacked the skill to deal with them. I would have treated the situation differently if I found out that he had tried to hurt me, because he was jealous of something I had (of my nerdy beauty perhaps? :!).

Its generally accepted as good form to offer remuneration to a person whom you have injured even if it was inadvertant, regardless of the law. Unfortunately there are a lot of greedy and dishonest people out there and people need to defend themselves against them. Going through the proper legal system is just easier so that everyone can be assured they are protected as well as they can be. Some people are able to exploit this too though.

I was hit by a truck while crossing the street several years ago. As soon as possible the insurance company called me and offered me a couple thousand dollars. Only after this did I find out that I would be needing surgery. My medical bills eventually amounted to over ten times their offer. Had I accepted, in all likelihood, it would have prevented me from being able to file a lawsuit and I would not have been able to get any more money from them.
In the end I settled out of court and did not get much more money than what it cost for my lawyer and medical bills. I don't think many people get those amazing settlements you hear about all the time. Those usually require special circumstances and a lot of luck with the jury.

 

[gravenewworld]

Don't most laws only apply sometimes? e.g. you can't convict just anybody for murder: you can only convict those people for whom it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that they committed murder. (And even then there are exceptions)

Murder is black and white. You prove whether someone did something or not based on evidence of the fact. What this ruling does is allow someone to be sued for nonmedical aid that results in injury. You can act with reasonable care and save someone, but if that person is injured while you rescue them, they can sue you. The person who sues you might not win in court because you acted with reasonable care, however, they are can still sue you because the aid you rendered was not "medical" care. This will do nothing more than deter people from helping.

What ruling says this? I don't know the relevant law, but the link you gave states that the ruling only shields them when "acting with 'reasonable care'".

And what is reasonable care? If one doctor says that must perform an amputation to save someones life, while in another docotor says that no amputation is needed, and the amputation is performed, who is right? Reasonable care is something lawyers have to argue over. But this has nothing to do with the ruling at hand. The ruling simply now states that you can sue someone for injuries that result from nonmedical aid. That's it.

(Given my previous comment, I'm not sure the above is relevant, but I'll reply anyways)

It's obviously not a formal contradiction because it's applying to two different groups of people. Furthermore, the difference is relevant, since one group is (generally) trained in emergency care, and the other group is (generally) not.

It may be wrong to adopt both positions. It may be right. But it's definitely not contradictory. (At least not at such an obvious level)

If a medical doctor was walking by a burning building and pulled someone out of the flames, dislocating their shoulder in the process, but broke their ribs performing CPR on them to save their life, that doctor could be sued for the disslocation injury, not the CPR injury because the disslocated should resulted from actions that were "non medical". How is this not contradictory? Both actions saved that person's life and resulted in injury.

 

[Dmitry67]

Read all 4 pages.
Thank you for reminding me why I had left the US and moved to France. Every morning in the office I kiss girls in their cheeks (instead of just saying 'hi') and I am not thinking about sexual harrasement and other weird stuff :)

 

[Hurkyl]

If the car was in flames after pulling the victim out, the rescuer could claim to have saved the victims life for sure.

I repeat, That doesn't look very rational to me.

I don't know/understand what is the ultimate purpose of these laws, so I don't know are they working as intended. I can only try to reason how they are guiding people to act.

You didn't answer my question! Are you making judgements of such laws in general, or only about the specific set of laws we have now? You're the one who introduced the phrase "they don't work", so I had assumed you had some notion of what it means for these law to work.

What kind of force are you looking for?

I'll know it when I see it. An example might be, in addition to clarifying the meaning of "doesn't work" and the line being "too thin", a link to some statistical summary of data gathered from emergency situations that supports your position. Basically, something that goes well beyond merely stating opinion.

 

[Evo]

I repeat, That doesn't look very rational to me.

I believe he was being facetious.

 

[Hurkyl]

I believe he was being facetious.

I would never have guessed!

Murder is black and white. You prove whether someone did something or not based on evidence of the fact. ...

Huh? You asked

How do you write such a law that only works sometimes?​

what does this, and the ensuing paragraph, have to do with that?

This will do nothing more than deter people from helping.

Blatantly false. Here are some of the various other things will be deterred:
1. Giving help when help is needed
2. Doing harm in the name of help when help is needed
3. Both (1) and (2) simultaneously
4. (3), but in the situation where someone else could have helped without harm
5. Doing harm in the name of help when help is unneeded

Are you seriously expecting me to believe that, despite everything in this thread, you were completely unaware of these other aspects of the situation?

(If you actually were aware, then might I suggest you withdraw until such time as you can be intellectually honest about the discussion)

And what is reasonable care? [snip] But this has nothing to do with the ruling at hand.

(Snipping mine) But it does have to do with your assertion:

The ruling says that it is OK to give doctors the green light to behave with as much wrecklessness as they want in order to save someones life​

If a medical doctor was walking by a burning building and pulled someone out of the flames, dislocating their shoulder in the process, but broke their ribs performing CPR on them to save their life, that doctor could be sued for the disslocation injury, not the CPR injury because the disslocated should resulted from actions that were "non medical". How is this not contradictory? Both actions saved that person's life and resulted in injury.

Again, the two cases: people trained for such action, and people not trained for such action. The medical doctor is (generally) not trained for rescuing people from burning buildings.

And of course the specific law under discussion does not shield the medical doctor from pulling the guy out of the building -- it was never meant to!^* It was (presumably) meant to protect people who perform aid within their area of expertise (assuming 'good faith', 'reasonable care', and all that). This does not prevent some other law from protecting the doctor.

*: In my estimation as a non-lawyer / non-legislator

 

[Proton Soup]

i think the answer for you californians is, next time you come across an injured person in the road, just set up a traffic barrier with your auto to protect them. that'll get peoples' attention.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

Better yet, run up to the burning wreckage and tell them that if they want help that they need to waive all rights pertaining to any injuries or possibly death that might ensue in the process of saving their life. And get them to sign off on it before pulling them from the wreckage.

 

[mgb_phys]

Better yet, run up to the burning wreckage and tell them that if they want help that they need to waive all rights pertaining to any injuries... And get them to sign off on it

No - this is California.
You run upto the burning car - ask them if they have an agent. Call your agent and negotiate the rights for the mini-series, see who is interested in staring and THEN think about rescuing them - if it works for the plot.

 

[russ_watters]

[re: "This will do nothing more than deter people from helping..."]Blatantly false. Here are some of the various other things will be deterred:
1. Giving help when help is needed
2. Doing harm in the name of help when help is needed
3. Both (1) and (2) simultaneously
4. (3), but in the situation where someone else could have helped without harm
5. Doing harm in the name of help when help is unneeded

You're on the right track, and I don't want to derail, but I would also like to point out that the purpose of this law - and any law regarding liability - isn't to modify behavior. Actually making people responsible for their actions is the primary purpose. From an ethical and legal standpoint, it isn't actually necessary for the net effect of the law to reduce harm. Just like the net effect of punishing murder on the murder rate (does punishing it reduce it?) is secondary to the moral responsibility of punishing the crime.

That said, I think it is very likely that applying a relatively straightforward statistical analysis to this issue will show that both bases are covered: not only does this provide for the moral requirement of holding people responsible for their actions, it also has the net effect of reducing harm.

Incidentally, I was googling for the probability of car fires and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability. It's exactly the cognitive bias we're dealing with here and it uses the common fallacy of not wearing seat belts because of the risk of car fires as an example.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It was (presumably) meant to protect people who perform aid within their area of expertise (assuming 'good faith', 'reasonable care', and all that).

I don't believe that expertise had anything to do with it. I believe it was for the purpose of protecting any common layperson who attempted to assist a person in an emergency. There are separate laws and regulations regarding the actions of professionals(people with expertise) both on and off the clock.

You're on the right track, and I don't want to derail, but I would also like to point out that the purpose of this law - and any law regarding liability - isn't to modify behavior. Actually making people responsible for their actions is the primary purpose.

I'm not sure if maybe you misstated but the purpose of the good samaritan law is to protect persons from lawsuits for their actions in the course of rendering emergency aid. Not to hold them responsible. It is the decision of the court to offically clarify and restrict the law to only persons specifically rendering emergency medical aid. So a person can botch the job while attempting to render medical aid and they are protected but a person who renders nonmedical aid and saves a persons life is not.

Doctors get hit with malpractice suits all the time by people who are not happy with the out come of the care they received, regardless of whether or not all was done to help that could be done. Your average doctor has a position of medical authority, good lawyers, and malpratice insurance to cover this sort of thing. Your average joe hit with such a lawsuit has none of this. Essentially a persons life could be comepltely ruined by a lawsuit for some outrageous sum of money for no reason except that he tried to help someone out and the outcome was less than satisfactory. This is the point of the law and the protection it grants.

 

[Crazy Tosser]

How much damage could you possibly cause with good intentions, especially compared to loss of life?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How much damage could you possibly cause with good intentions, especially compared to loss of life?

Any person in a precarious condition could find themselves permanently crippled, or may even die, at the hands of a person attempting to administer aid who does not know what they are doing. The article in the OP is a prime example. The woman believed that she was helping her friend when in fact she very possibly agravated her injuries and rendered "aid" that was not at all needed.

 

[gravenewworld]

I would never have guessed!


Huh? You asked

How do you write such a law that only works sometimes?​

what does this, and the ensuing paragraph, have to do with that?


Blatantly false. Here are some of the various other things will be deterred:
1. Giving help when help is needed
2. Doing harm in the name of help when help is needed
3. Both (1) and (2) simultaneously
4. (3), but in the situation where someone else could have helped without harm
5. Doing harm in the name of help when help is unneeded

Are you seriously expecting me to believe that, despite everything in this thread, you were completely unaware of these other aspects of the situation?

(If you actually were aware, then might I suggest you withdraw until such time as you can be intellectually honest about the discussion)




(Snipping mine) But it does have to do with your assertion:

The ruling says that it is OK to give doctors the green light to behave with as much wrecklessness as they want in order to save someones life​

Again, the two cases: people trained for such action, and people not trained for such action. The medical doctor is (generally) not trained for rescuing people from burning buildings.

And of course the specific law under discussion does not shield the medical doctor from pulling the guy out of the building -- it was never meant to!^* It was (presumably) meant to protect people who perform aid within their area of expertise (assuming 'good faith', 'reasonable care', and all that). This does not prevent some other law from protecting the doctor.

*: In my estimation as a non-lawyer / non-legislator

Whoa whoa hold on here.

I am basically agreeing with what everying statutoryape says.

No where does the new ruling say expertise has anything to do with who is and who isn't protected while trying to help. A doctor would be protected from breaking someone's ribs peforming CPR while a firefighter or paramedic would not be protected if they caused injury pulling somone out of a car wreck, even though those two groups of people are professionals too , because the doctor is performing medical aid while the paramedic and firefighter are performing nonmedical aid.

The only reason the ruling is saying "better leave it to the professionals" is because it says that you can be sued for injuries caused while rescuing. Professionals have a better chance of rescuing without causing injury, which is why the ruling is basically saying leave it to them, but they too are not protected from liability at all. Only doctors, nurses, ore even some average joe schmo.--people who perform medical aid are.


This is my gripe with the ruling. You protect people who perform medical aid (professional or not), but you don't protect people who save a person's life in the first place.

 

[misgfool]

You didn't answer my question! Are you making judgements of such laws in general, or only about the specific set of laws we have now?

I don't see the difference between these two if both of them are the same.

You're the one who introduced the phrase "they don't work", so I had assumed you had some notion of what it means for these law to work.

With "they don't work" I was referring to the logic consequence to behavior of people. From my philosophical point of view "they don't work" meant that such laws make it very risky to provide any assistance to individuals in trouble. When you asked I answered in a more general sense.

I'll know it when I see it. An example might be, in addition to clarifying the meaning of "doesn't work" and the line being "too thin", a link to some statistical summary of data gathered from emergency situations that supports your position. Basically, something that goes well beyond merely stating opinion.

Obviously I can't provide any statistics on this matter. My claim was that rational people will play safe and not help. So I would have to poll (US) people whether they would help other people in accidents when they new the risks to themselves. I would, however, like to see you provide some statistics to back your case. Otherwise your comments are just stating an opinion as well unless I'm utterly mistaken.

 

[Danger]

It is starting to seem to me that in the US the best thing to do if you run across an injured person is to kill him; then pull the "They shoot horses, don't they?" defense.

 

[turbo]

People often run into dangerous situations because of their desire to help. A number of years back a fellow was cleaning out an old well that he intended to use when he built his house. His brother dropped to see how he was doing (or perhaps to lend a hand), saw his brother collapsed in the well, and climbed down the ladder to get him. A bit later a good friend of mine that lived down the road a bit dropped in and found both brothers collapsed at the bottom of the well, with a gas-powered mud pump running nearby. Arnold knew that the well was probably filled with carbon monoxide, so he shut off the pump and ran home to call 911. He was good friends with both of the dead men, and it still haunts him that he could not save them. He kept his head though, and it might have cost him his life if he had not.

 

[mgb_phys]

Arnold knew that the well was probably filled with carbon monoxide, so he shut off the pump and ran home to call 911.

Well done, that's the common tragedy in confined space training. In the majority of cases somebody jumps into help, collapses and then someone else goes to help them... By the time anyone calls 911 there are a dozen extra casualties.

The trouble with the US is that if you had saved them you would have been sued anyway. Then in court a lawyer gets you to admit you had gas attack training in the army 20 years ago and so convinces the jury that you are an expert, and your liability insurance then cancels because you hadn't informed them of this pertinent 'fact'.
Then they find out you are employed by a company with deep pockets - so they are included in the case on the basis that you were wearing their promotional t-shirt or baseball cap.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't see the difference between these two if both of them are the same.

Huh? I don't see how they're the same.

I would, however, like to see you provide some statistics to back your case. Otherwise your comments are just stating an opinion as well unless I'm utterly mistaken.

What case? The only case I've been (intentionally) making is several people are making very flimsy arguments: the situation isn't as black and white as some people are trying to make it out to be! If I had a real opinion, and the facts to back it up, you would see me arguing my case in addition to challenging those who don't have one.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is starting to seem to me that in the US the best thing to do if you run across an injured person is to kill him; then pull the "They shoot horses, don't they?" defense.

"Hello, 911"

"My husband's been shot!"

"Is he dead?"

"Let me check...<pause>...<sound of a gunshot>...<pause>... Okay, he's dead. Now what?"

 

[mgb_phys]

That might well be real after listening to some of these
http://www.911callers.com/