CA law now allows good samaritans to be sued.

[gravenewworld]

What is this country coming to?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-good-samaritan19-2008dec19,0,4033454.story

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[gravenewworld]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Danger]

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.

 

[gravenewworld]

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?

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[WarPhalange]

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.

 

[OAQfirst]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[wildman]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[JasonRox]

America

Everyone for themselves.

 

[mgb_phys]

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?

 

[WarPhalange]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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?

 

[Hurkyl]

America

Everyone for themselves.

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)

 

[WarPhalange]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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!

 

[Danger]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[misgfool]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[hypatia]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?!

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[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)