I don’t know the details of that case, and don’t care. In a Good Samaritan situation, the point is that the assister never meets a perfect standard, hindsight is always better than decision making contemprary to the event, and every action is open to criticism for one reason or another. Moreover, any injuries will be blamed by the plaintiff’s attorney on the assister rather than the event, even without any way to know that. That’s the whole idea of having the law in the first place.
The enormous consequence to society of holding that a judgment error made in good faith will be punished by legal accountability is horrendously bad.
I am certain a plaintiff attorney would paint the Good Samaritan here as hysterical, drunk and reckless. Consider the opposite scenario: The girls have been drinking. There’s an accident. The victim is choking to death on her own blood and needs nothing more than a repositioning to survive. “I had had a couple of glasses of wine and I wasn’t sure I was sober enough to help. I was also quite anxious from the accident itself. So I just sat there meditating while she died.”
As an aside, I should note that the comments above suggesting that, net net, immediate transport to an expert facility saves the most lives (rather than complex algorithms around immobilization and scene stabilization) is correct. If you find the Pedant in a severe MVA, haul me out and drive me to the hospital. Every moment counts and “stabilization” at the scene is way overrated.