California Legislators finally correct the wrongdoing of the State Supreme Court!
On August 6, 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 83 (Feuer/Benoit), legislation which encourages individuals to act as "Good Samaritans" and voluntarily help rescue others in peril. The legislation goes into effect immediately.
“Now Good Samaritans have no reason to hesitate to responsibly help someone in an emergency out of fear that they might be sued, " Assembly Member Mike Feuer said. "This legislation encourages Californians to look out for each other at a time when public resources are all too scarce. I'm proud of the broad coalition that came together to make this common sense law possible." The bill garnered unanimous bi-partisan support in its passage through the Legislature, and it created a broad and unusual alliance of support from law enforcement and rescue agencies, as well as the plaintiffs and defense bars and the American Heart Association.
“As a former Highway Patrol Commander, I’ve experienced many situations where Good Samaritans arrived first on the scene, making the difference between life and death for accident victims,” commented Senator John J. Benoit (R-Bermuda Dunes), a 31-year law enforcement veteran and principal co-author of AB 83. “Good Samaritans show kindness to others and their good acts should be encouraged, rather than discouraged.”
AB 83 reverses a recent court decision and clarifies the Legislature's intent to shield all Good Samaritans from lawsuits if they act responsibility – regardless of whether their rescue assistance is of a medical or non-medical nature. In the court case of Van Horn v. Watson, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Good Samaritan statute only partially protected those who voluntarily act as Good Samaritans from possible negligence lawsuits. The Supreme Court held that such volunteer rescuers would only be shielded from lawsuits if they provided “medical care” at the scene of an emergency; they would not be protected from possible liability if they provided "non-medical care."
Another supporter of the legislation, Christine D. Spagnoli, president of Consumer Attorneys of California, stated: “This bill strikes an important balance between the human desire to help people who are in distress, and the rights of victims. Consumer attorneys are delighted to join police, firefighters, paramedics and insurance and business groups in endorsing this measure.”
“Assemblyman Feuer and his co-authors deserve a big thanks for acting quickly and fixing a quirky law that threatened to penalize people who performed noble acts in helping others in an emergency," said John H. Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC).
Assembly Member Feuer was moved to introduce AB 83 by personal experience. While driving home from work on a Los Angeles freeway we witnessed the driver of a pickup truck swerve and lose control, overturning in traffic. Feuer helped pull the driver and his family from the overturned vehicle while others blocked traffic on the busy freeway.
2 comments:
Good review of the problem and solution. This situation is a great example of how "bad facts make bad Court rulings." Partying folks ... maybe tea totalers ... "drag" victim out of car and lay her next to the car, then later claim it was to prevent injury due to explosion and/or fire. From 1980's to 2008 we helpful people lived in ignorance of just how crazy California Courts have become. Thankfully, the Legislature and Gubernator re-set the hurdle, until the next activist Court knocks it down, again.
This continues to present ugly problems for many, however. Those trained in first aid and CPR, no matter the level, will likely stop and render aid to persons in a motor vehicle accident without first considering their exposure to liability, believing they are simply acting as any person with similar training and skills would, a good samaritan if you will, helping another human being.
Is a trained "First Aider" s Good Samaritan? The law never really distinguished just who is and who is not. It is ambiguous and many still feel that if you have a level of competency above that of the average street person, you are still liable to be sued for negligence in the event a rescue attempt goes awry. It happens all the time in public services where you make the call to get someone out now due to exigent circumstances; but a court will say that was a professional call which a semi-trained person had no right to make. Ahh, the joys of second-guessing the litigious hungry vultures!
We all know some attorney will attempt to file suit based on the level of care provided, that the volunteer or Good Samaritan exceeded their threshold of training in some way or form, and that resulted in injury to their client that was beyond what was received in the MVA.
Ambulance chasing is alive and well in California and nationwide as I understand. It will be interesting to see the results of this law as time progresses.
Thanks so much for your well thought out and presented comment!
Post a Comment