Fuck off (some of you) judges. While I feel for the woman who is now a paraplegic POSSIBLY due to being moved from the vehicle, making it possible to sue someone for TRYING to help is NOT what the legislature intended.
I hope the California Legislature cleans this up (after they figure out how to pay the bills in the state).
The whole idea of a Good Samaritan law is so that you don’t have to worry about being sued (a la the Incredibles) for trying to help.
Wow, that sucks. I think the dissenting justices got it right. The protection is there to encourage people to take the initiative to help people in need. There doesn’t seem to be any inducement to help anyone if it could potentially ruin your entire family’s life because you displayed compassion for another human being.
It seems pretty crass to sue for the unfortunate result of her compassion.
Going solely by the article, I will note that if you think a car is going to explode Real Soon Now, it’s really damned stupid, if not near-criminal, to pull the injured victim from the wreckage and then leave them right next to the car.
What’s your point? If the risk of appearing stupid discourages people from following their gut to save a life or reduce risk to someone, it effectively nullifies the purpose for the law in the first place. Why should I put my ass on the line to save your potentially ungrateful ass?
So, if I see you unconscious in a burning car with flames lapping at your ankles, I should leave you there because it’s not medical for me to save you. That’s so fucking stupid.
I will however agree with the later findings in which the defendant was an imbecile.
Uhhh…like they would have be better off IN the car ? :rolleyes:
Hell, with that take on it, this sounds like someone is sueing someone else for not being a GOOD ENOUGH semaritan!
Yep.
Leave it to California to render a decision that forces your fellow man to allow you to die in the flaming wreckage of your car because they might be sued.
What the fuck is this country coming to?
I hope to his noodley goodness that this insanity stays out on the left coast.
Idiots.
It may not be the right thing to do but I’d rather risk my ass, either legaly or physicaly than let somebody die while I watched. Sleeping is tough enough. I do however know enough to render first aid.
Well, the argument made seemed to indicate that besides there possibly not being any real evidence that the car was going to explode, the defense of “I thought the car was going to explode” can be argued against by the lack of further action that you would think should be forthcoming. (In this case, yes the person might well have been better off in the car because it apparently didn’t explode.)
I’m not agreeing with the “it’s not medical aid” argument, but on a personal-not-legal level - no, I would not have wanted that person around to “help” me if they think you’re all better if you’re right next to the about-to-explode car.
Is it a matter of letting them die or watching my (hypothetical) kid not be able to have a college education because my assets are seized? A matter of my husband never being able to retire because we don’t have the money?
In that situation, the rational part of my brain says, “Burn, baby, burn.” The rest of me doesn’t think I could just stand by and watch. The thing that sucks is that I’d never forgive myself, either way.
Ferret’s point, like those of the majority justices, is that the “rescuer” was dumber than a bag of hair.
If you were unconscious in a burning car, and I ran up and moved you from the front seat to the back seat, is that helpful? That’s basically what the defendant did. She ripped the victim out of the front seat and dropped her on the ground right there. She was in the same jeopardy as before, but possibly injured worse.
The would-be rescuer’s instincts were good, but her execution was horrendous.
That said, I think the Supreme Court’s decision is extremely fucking stupid.
I also agree that our Good Samaritan does not sound like the sharpest tool in the shed.
However, I am looking at my CPR card in my wallet right now. If I pull you from the car, I am going to give you CPR and any other medical shit I can think of just to cover my ass. I am going to stick bandaids on, do chest pushes, hell I might add sling - all so that I can be seen as rendering MEDICAL aid.
Ditto. First, I’ll stick band-aids to your forehead and then I’ll pull you out of the burning shed.
WTF? I suppose if you are sitting in a crashed car with a broken leg and some terrified idiot with no idea what she is doing runs up to you and yanks you out of the car in an UNREASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MANNER and breaks your neck that it is just honkey dorey? All the court said is she is not immune from suit based on that one particular statute that it applies to those rendering medical assistance. They have not held she is liable for injuries just that the statute does not grant her immunity. The plaintiff still must show the that she was hurt as a result of the defendants negligence. Negligence is determined by a jury based on the circumstances. I guess all of you are in favor of the WII (Well Intentioned Idiot)Defense.
From the OP link:
Why on God’s green earth was drinking not mentioned (and apparently not investigated) as a mitigating factor? Good Samaritans should be protected, but victims should also be protected from those too drunk to think clearly about how and if they can care for an injured person.
Yeah, but for every retard that actually made matters worse (which I am not sure I buy 100 percent in this case) there are dozens/a hundred that would probably make things better statistically speaking and probably about the same number that are intellectually standing on the side lines worrying about a possible lawsuit.
This decision means plenty of functional “helpers” now WILL not help you, and those folks on the side lines will STAY on the sidelines.
The funny thing is the “retard” will probably still “help” you…and I’d now say the good folks in California now deserve such “help” .
Where is Lex Luthor when you need him?
Me either. So the choice can only go one way.
I will never watch someone die over my own fear. When you stand in front of the mirror and see yourself, your ugly weak self, you know. You will always know.
OK. So when somebody throws a drowning man an anchor you guys will just ignore it if he claims he was just trying to help?
While we’re making wild-ass analogies here, let’s say the guy throwing the anchor has an IQ of 68. Now what?
I would think this is in part what some of the justices were considering. As the victim’s lawyer state in the OP’s article: "“if a person volunteers to act, he or she must act with reasonable care”. The article also mentions the Good Samaritan was acting “irrationally”.
I think part of the majority decision was based on the idea that if you are in such a state of panic, inebriation, or your faculties are otherwise so compromised that you can not rationally and reasonably assess a situation and take an appropriate and reasonable course of action, as a rescuer you suck. And you may do far more harm than good.
For example, I would never ever want my mother to try to help me in an emergency. Once she saw I had cut my eyebrow, so in an “Oh my Penguin! I have to stop the bleeding!” moment, she SLAMMED my face with her fist wrapped in a dish rag, giving me a black eye and a scratched cornea. (She didn’t punch me with her kuckles, she hit me with the palm side of her fist).
She is not the person to go running to the rescue. It’s best for everyone if she is the one who just stands by the side of the road waving her hands in the air next to her face making “EEP! EEP!” noises. She’s totally incapable of rational thought in an emergency.
But as tempting as it is to think that a court might outlaw stupidity, I just don’t think it’s fair or practical, to punish Good Samaritans for acting in good faith. You can make a rational decision while assisting someone and then it turns out your decision was wrong even though it was a reasonable and logical choice at the time.