On December 18, our illustrious, albeit assinine state supreme court out here in the Granola State decided that Would-be Good Samaritans can be sued, for trying to do the right thing.
As one reporter stated, "Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.
California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.
Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.
"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.
Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.
Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.
Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.
Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.
Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.
Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.
So, when the car in front of you crashes and burns, and the people are trapped and being incinerated, drive on past, because if you stop to help, and they find an attorney who says you injured them in your extrication efforts, you're screwed. Never mind that they would have died in the crash and or fire, but that you were not rendering medical care, so you might be liable.
Certainly, the correct thing to do when possible, is not to move a person until fully trained medical help arrives. But when there is concern that a greater danger is imminent, that there is exigent circumstances such as fire or explosion, or impact by other vehicles, you have to react to preclude further injury. There used to be, until now at least, what was known as the "reasonable person" test, in which the question was "did you do what a reasonable person would have done under the same or similar circumstances?" I don't know the exact details of the case above, but obviously the defendant had reasonable cause, in her estimation, to believe the car was going to burn or explode, and did what she believed was the right thing to do at the moment. And the person she rescued was a friend. Man, with friends like that, you don't need any damned enemies in my book!
What a bunch of bullsh*t this is. How much "medical care" can the average citizen actually render when they go to the aid of a person who is in a wreck? My spouse and I are perhaps different, having had medical training, but still I am now hesitant, since you're still liable to be sued, and if the court thinks you might have exceeded, in the most minute detail, the boundaries of that medical training, you're going to lose. And, even if you're not found guilty, the legal costs could ruin your life, cost you your home and life savings and everything you worked hard for.
This is the reason doctors don't stop at accident scenes. Because if everything doesn't go perfectly, some lawyer will say they didn't do enough, did the wrong thing, or otherwise caused more harm to the victim. In other words, drive on by, doc. Save yourself a lawsuit!
It's come to the juncture where citizens have to watch fellow humans suffer irreparable harm and even death in accidents and other situations, for fear of lawsuits. Doing the right thing makes you a victim in this state, if not this country. But what if you just stand back and watch someone die, or suffer horrible injuries, when you could have helped them out? Is there any repercussions there, save the terrible moral weight placed on your mind and spirit that you didn't do the right thing for them, but did the right thing for you? Not where accidents are concerned it appears.
Only in America, or perhaps California, could the judicial system ruin your life for saving another person's life. No wonder we've become such a hard-nosed society with a total disdain for our fellow man. You'd get less flak for kicking an accident victim as you passed by, than trying to help them, or so it seems.
As America continues on the fast track down the tubes and the judiciary lubes the tubes with bullsh*t!
No comments:
Post a Comment