CA law now allows good samaritans to be sued.

[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/