Good Samaritans can be sued in California

[Jetsfan]

Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4033454.story

[Coach]

wow....thanks for saving my life.....SUED!

[Resolute 14]

Wow, terrible decision by the court in California.

[Ford Prefect]

Hasn't that always been the case all over the US? From what I've always understood Canada has a Samaritan's Act that protects Canadians from liability issues in such cases, whereas the Americans don't.

Edit: A quick internet search reveals it's a jurisdictional issue in both Canada and the US, that is, it is state or provincial law. From the looks of it all Canadian provinces have provincial legislation that protects Samaritans, whereas in the US there are a lot of gaps in the system between the different states.

[Incinerator]

If I was the gal getting sued I'd sure hope that bitch gets into another car crash and burn to death in an explosion...

[GreenTeaFrapp]

What about the places that have good samaritan laws were bystanders are forced to take action like the series finale of Seinfeld?

Do you have to choose between being sued or being arrested?

[Coach]

lol..."there goes the money for the Lypo"

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

What about the places that have good samaritan laws were bystanders are forced to take action like the series finale of Seinfeld?

Do you have to choose between being sued or being arrested?

I know in Quebec, if you have medical training, you are required to help people in need of attention, but you are also protected from lawsuits.

I guess the issue in California was that the help given was not deemed "medical" in nature, which opens up a whole can of worms.

[Bobblehead]

The thing that makes this interesting, and kind of the crux of the issue in this case, is that the woman who is being sued is being accused of panicking.

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."

So the woman gets in an accident, the car isn't going to catch fire or explode, and another possibly drunk woman (they had been at a bar until 1:30am) yanks her out and and aggravates the injury.

In no way do I want to scare any potential good samaritans, but this case isn't quite as cut and dried as it sounds. If I was there I probably would have voted against this ruling, but I can definitely see both sides of the issue.

[RougeUnderoos]

And then she apparently left her lying by the side of the car.

It sounds to me like this woman did something stupid and is going to get sued for it.

[Thunderball]

Its a sticky situation, especially in a place where you (maybe via HMO) pay for medical expenses. One of the resident lawyers can probably explain this better, but a similar situation was in a course I took and I believe its a matter of negligence.

Say dufus goes go-karting and drives like an idiot, and flips the cart. They are hurt, but not badly. Before the attendants can arrive, dufus' friends rush over and pull him out. While doing so, they cause greater injury to dufus. Who is at fault?

Dufus signed a waiver, and lets say he wasn't drunk, or lacking in a way that the attendants ought to have refused his use of the facility. Facility has trained attendants who may have responded in a "reasonable" amount of time, but not soon enough to prevent friends of dufus. So probably not them.

Dufus drove the vehicle poorly and ended up getting injured. He is at fault. But he's not alone.

Since they lacked knowledge and ability to handle the situation properly, they acted in a way that a reasonable person might not. They exacerbated the injuries, and hence, would also be liable. It could be argued a reasonable person would get trained help, and not take matters into their own hands when they don't know what they are doing. Apparently, a reasonable person would not act in a manner that is outside their limitations and qualifications.

[troutman]

The first thing our Torts professor at UBC said was "don't help anyone"!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

The first thing our Torts professor at UBC said was "don't help anyone"!

I thought in BC, you were legally responsible to help children (but not adults) who are in medical danger?

[CaptainCrunch]

Thats why I insist that they read and sign a waiver in triplicate before I pull them out of a flaming car wreck.

Then I take their wallet

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Since they lacked knowledge and ability to handle the situation properly, they acted in a way that a reasonable person might not. They exacerbated the injuries, and hence, would also be liable. It could be argued a reasonable person would get trained help, and not take matters into their own hands when they don't know what they are doing. Apparently, a reasonable person would not act in a manner that is outside their limitations and qualifications.

But that's not necessarily it. For example, I'm not a trained person, but if I give someone CPR, that's a medical act and is covered whether or not I know what I'm doing.

[CaptainCrunch]

So going by the law, in terminator 2, Sarah Conner could have sued Cyberdyne Systems, SkyNet and its various holdings, and the T-800 as soon as he reached out to her and said "Come with me if you want to live"

Man she could have prevented judgement day through the use of a sympathetic judge and a lawsuit happy lawyer.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

But that's not necessarily it. For example, I'm not a trained person, but if I give someone CPR, that's a medical act and is covered whether or not I know what I'm doing.

I don't think thats the case if you lack formal training. If you think you can do it because you saw it on TV, you are officially an untrained person performing a medical act, even if you did it correctly (which is the grounds this woman in California is being sued upon). However, most people in a life-or-death situation would consent for someone to give it a try, but from a legal POV, you don't know.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I don't think thats the case if you lack formal training. If you think you can do it because you saw it on TV, you are officially an untrained person performing a medical act, even if you did it correctly (which is the grounds this woman in California is being sued upon). However, most people in a life-or-death situation would consent for someone to give it a try, but from a legal POV, you don't know.

That's not how I read the article. It's whether or not you use reasonable care that's the defining criteria. The fact that she flopped her around like a rag doll was the issue, she's being sued for a lack of reasonable care.

[ricoFlame]

Jeez, in cali, karma really is a bitch.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

That's not how I read the article. It's whether or not you use reasonable care that's the defining criteria. The fact that she flopped her around like a rag doll was the issue, she's being sued for a lack of reasonable care.

Its within the definition of reasonable care. It is not reasonable for someone with no training to attempt CPR, they simply lack the confirmed knowledge. Just like its not reasonable for someone with no emergency training to pull someone out of a car wreck... and in the process, do a poor job of it.

It doesn't matter if you mean well. A reasonable person doesn't act outside their limits, or without thinking.