CA law now allows good samaritans to be sued.

[Astronuc]

I would imagine that the smoke and liquid was actually steam and coolant from the radiator and engineer cooling system, which often happens when the front end of a car smashes into an object like a tree or light pole (assumine the pole doesn't give).

There was a head-on collision in front of my house. Both cars were probably doing 45-50 mph. One car had gone tangent on the curve and the left front half of the cars collided.

The driver who caused the accident was screaming in a panic. I asked if she was alright, and she indicated she was. I was able to pull open her door, and she got out with support. My daughter then helped to the side of the road.

The other driver was severely injured. The airbag had deployed and filled the gas with a really noxious vapor. The driver's side door was jammed into the frame and rear passenger door. The front corner of the car had been crushed and pushed back into the passenger compartment, and as far as I could tell, the left front wheel was where his left foot would normally be.

His left foot and leg were broken as far as I could tell, and he couldn't move, so I told him to stay put. I was concerned about a neck injury, so I wasn't going to move him - unless the car had burst into flames. There was no smell of gasoline - just steam and radiator fluid.

The point is - one has to make a quick assessment and take the course of action that does least damage. If someone is not in imminent danger, wait until the professional rescue people arrive.

When they arrived, the emergency workers had to get into the car through the back doors, and it took a while to extract him from the car.

 

[devil-fire]

The crux of the issue here is if a rescuer should be required to think rationally about their actions while trying to respond to an emergency in order to prevent liability. If the rescuer weighed the likelihood of the car catching fire and exploding against the likelihood of aggravating the victim's injuries, the story would be much different. The rescuer should have had enough evidence to believe the car was going to catch fire to remove the victim from the wreck as vigorously as she did. If the other people on the scene also believed the car was going to catch fire or if it in fact later caught fire, the rescuer's actions would be excusable. Even if there wasn't a good reason to believe the car was going to catch fire and the rescuer pulled the person from the wreck with great care as to not aggravate the victim's injuries and pulled the victim to a place where they would not be injured from the car catching fire then the rescuer's actions would be excusable.

Instead, it sounds as if the rescuer was hysterical and pulled the person from the car without concern for further injury and once the damage was done, they simply left the victim where they were.

Sometimes the proactive mentality of "act now, think later" in an emergency can save lives but sometimes it gets people killed. Alternatively the "think now, act later" mentality in an emergency has many fewer rescuer related deaths and injuries associated with it.

 

[devil-fire]

Sometimes being legally liable isn't the biggest factor in deciding if a good samaritan is going to help someone though.

If you see a person bleeding profusely from the head as if they have a serious brain injury getting ready to climb a tree and you tell them they need help and they respond "I'm fine, I just need to get these cookies out of the oven before they burn" you could say to yourself "OK, well I did what I could, it's too bad the guy is going to kill himself but I'm going to be late for work" or you could say "This guy is going to kill himself if I don't help him, even though he told me he is fine. I could vary well be legally liable for what I have to do to help this guy but I'm not going to let this guy kill himself"

I mean what kind of good person would let someone die because they don't want to risk having to legally protect themselves down the road?

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

Yes persuading people that cars don't explode and not to drag people form the wreck is a good thing.

The bigger danger is what effect it has on people's behaviour generally.
Have you ever taken a CPR class?
If you did CPR on someone who had collapsed, odds are you would be sued (in the USA generally everbody within a 2mile radius however peripherally involved will be sued)
The burden of proving responsible behaviour is higher on you because you had training - did you do everything exactly as in the manual, does your manual agre with the theirs?
If you did nothing and it was later shown you had CPR training - you might also be found liable, remember lying about the training to the police is naughty.
The safest course is never to take any CPR training - then if a colleague or family member collapses you are safe.

We used to have portable oxygen cylinders in the telescope (at 14,500 ft) they were removed because of the possible liability - either if we used them or had them available and didn't use them. There was a fire in the construction of the Japanese telescope next door where 3 workers overcome by smoke - they died before they could be got off the mountain.

 

[gravenewworld]

...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! 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.

No I'm not. You are failing to see how this case COULD affect other situations in the future. Why don't you use some logic to see how the outcome of this case could potentially dissuade people from helping out at all.

The court ruled that only those who administer medical care in an accident are immune from civil suits. You can be sued for potentially life saving actions.

What if you pull someone out of burning building that has spinal injuries? You can potentially be sued now, even though you saved their life, for aggravating their injury. I suppose you would just be better off just letting them burn to death.

 

[gravenewworld]

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.

No I do not agree with that statement.

However, that was a very broad statement. Do you agree with this statement? "People should be allowed to sue those for life saving actions that result in injury."

 

[Renge Ishyo]

Do you agree with this statement?


"People should be allowed to sue those for life saving actions that result in injury."

Only if you agree with this statement:

"Dead people should be allowed to sue for life saving actions that never take place."

 

[Evo]

When I had my last "accident", I was in the road and could not get up. A woman driving by stopped and got out of her car and asked me if I needed assistance, I did. A guy playing basketball nearby saw me but did nothing.

I am very grateful to that woman and I would not blame her if any injuries resulted in her moving me. You've really got to be a crap weasel, IMO, to sue someone for trying to save your life. Obviously mine wasn't life threatening, but it could have been a serious spinal injury, I did need to get out of the road before someone ran over me coming around that corner.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you agree with this statement?

"People should be allowed to sue those for life saving actions that result in injury."

Yes. (sometimes) For example, if the injury is due to negligence on the saver's part.

 

[Hurkyl]

You've really got to be a crap weasel, IMO, to sue someone for trying to save your life.

I think you're only imagining cases where the saver acted in a reasonable fashion.

 

[gravenewworld]

I think you're only imagining cases where the saver acted in a reasonable fashion.

And in those cases they can be now sued.

 

[Hurkyl]

And in those cases they can be now sued.

Even if true, that wouldn't invalidate the point I was making.

 

[gravenewworld]

Even if true, that wouldn't invalidate the point I was making.

Yeah, but you are walking a fine line. You can allow suits against people that try to help, but at what cost? What's the cost/benefit here? I'd argue the cost is much more than the benefit. This simply is going to deter people from helping out at all.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd argue the cost is much more than the benefit.

Please do so -- it's tiring to see people merely assert their opinion over and over. I'm pretty sure that all of the obvious points have been raised, so if the discussion is to have any substance to it, one has to actually acknowledge and address them!

 

[gravenewworld]

Please do so -- it's tiring to see people merely assert their opinion over and over. I'm pretty sure that all of the obvious points have been raised, so if the discussion is to have any substance to it, one has to actually acknowledge and address them!

You said so yourself that you believe people should be allowed to sue other people that perform life saving deeds that may result in injury, but only sometimes. How do you write such a law that only works sometimes? 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 even though they might injure the person, but it isn't ok to protect people that save other people's lives through nonmedical actions if those actions might result in injury. How is this not contradictory? Should we allow firefighters to be sued now for pulling people out of burning buildings because they are performing nonmedical good samaritan deeds that could result in injury?

 

[Hurkyl]

You said so yourself that you believe people should be allowed to sue other people that perform life saving deeds that may result in injury, but only sometimes. How do you write such a law that only works sometimes?

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)

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

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'".

even though they might injure the person, but it isn't ok to protect people that save other people's lives through nonmedical actions if those actions might result in injury. How is this not contradictory?

(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)

 

[devil-fire]

You've really got to be a crap weasel, IMO, to sue someone for trying to save your life.

in the case brought up by the OP where the person became paraplegic after being "rescued" I expect the person is trying to make themselves financially secure for the future. There really aren't many ways a paraplegic can make money for them selves and if they don't have a family member to take care of them, they can have a vary high cost of living.

if they don't have life insurance and don't get any money related to the incident the only income they are going to get for the rest of their lives is disability checks. I don't know how much money that would be but I can't imagine it being enough to offer a respectable quality of life for a paraplegic.

In other words, suing someone isn't always a matter of spite, it can be a matter of necessity

 

[Danger]

So, since most CPR efforts result in broken or cracked ribs, the saved person should be able to collect for pain and suffering? I've had both, and I know how much it hurts, but it beats the hell out of being dead.

 

[misgfool]

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.

I see your point in this case. A rational person would have torched the car after pulling the person out just to be sure .

This is the same thing as use of excessive force for example to stop a rape in progress. The assaulter may have a gun or a knive, so I might get killed while helping, but if I kick the assaulter in the wrong place and (s)he is injured, I go to jail. What a great deal. So it's a rational choice to (rapidly) evaporate from the scene and if someone asks claim that you didn't see or hear anything.

The problem that I see in here is that, helping is a no win situation for the helper. Helper risks his/her life to save another and if (s)he survives (s)he might be sent to jail. I don't know how it is in the US, but to make things a little bit more challenging here we also go to jail if we don't help and stay around the scene. Even though we are taught in the army how to handle basic emergency situations, it is hard to make a correct decision in a short time without experience.

Although I can see some reason behind such laws, they just don't work in real life because the line is too thin. The lawmakers don't know what it is like to be involved in an accident. In the end the truth only depends on the lawyers ability to make a case. It's a risk some are not willing to take.

 

[Hurkyl]

I see your point in this case. A rational person would have torched the car after pulling the person out just to be sure .

Although I can see some reason behind such laws, they just don't work in real life because the line is too thin.

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?

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

The lawmakers don't know what it is like to be involved in an accident.

Er, so what? (and besides, I doubt it's strictly true)

 

[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