Ya know, karmic justice would have the chief majority justice involved in an accident and pinned under their vehicle and someone coming up and saying, “I’d love to help you, but the supreme court just ruled that if I do, and you’re injured, you could sue me. I’ll call 9-1-1 for you though. have a nice day.”
And he was blind too!
I wonder if the injured party said words like “I think it would be best if you did not move right now” would make any difference.
If I give you CPR, I WILL crack your ribs. Period. If your ribs DON’T make a little crack, odds are I am not pushing hard enough. The decision to administer CPR is not made after much deliberation - it is made FAST. If I wait, then brain damage sets in. I have to make the call after two quick checks of your system, without waiting to think about it.
Now, if you then sue me for giving you CPR because from every indication you appeared to need it, I will have to hire an attorney. I will have to defend myself, spending thousands of dollars (at least).
The People of The State of California (and in most states) have decided that Good Samaritans who are trying to help, regardless of the quality of their help, are immune from liability. The dipshit woman was trying to help. This was not overturned because the Court felt that she was NOT trying to help - that I would not pit. If the Court had said, “We think you are lying and you were not trying to render assistance” or even “We don’t agree that it is obvious that you were trying to render assistance, the lower Court needs to make that determination” I would not have Pitted.
However - she was trying to help. The Good Samaritan law is there to protect those trying to help. It is NOT there for those trying to help, who also do it perfectly. It is there for just trying.
Until now. Now it only counts if it was MEDICAL help. If I throw you a line and you are drowning, and the heavy hemp rope strikes you in the eye - you get to sue me for damages now. After all, it was not MEDICAL help I provided. If I pull you from the water and dislocate your arm while doing it, you get to sue me. If I pull you from a car that I think is going to burn, and you end up hurt, you get to sue me.
That is NOT a good thing.
No, it isn’t. It seems that the only rational choice in California now is to shoot the child in the burning car to save him from the acid Hitler glue. Kel Varnsen was right!
This is really not true.
Yes it is. It is a long established principle that persons should act reasonably. That if we undertake a rescue we are still required to act reasonably UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Just because you are trying to help someone does not give you a free pass to act recklessly or unreasonably UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Granted, anyone can make a mistake and what appeared reasonable UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES later turns out not to be. A jury can factor that in. Negligence consists of DUTY, BREACH OF THAT DUTY, CAUSE, and DAMAGES. If a plaintiff can show that the defendant owed him a duty, that the defendant breached that duty and that said breach of duty was the cause of the plaintiffs injuries then the plaintiff should prevail. In rescue situations it means that a person who undertake a rescue has a duty to undertake it in a reasonable manner and cannot through recklessness or unreasonableness make the would be rescuee worse off than she otherwise would have been. If the person is injured but the rescuer acted reasonably UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES she will not be liable.
So, do I have a duty to help someone injured if I am so able to? If I do, then what if I choose not to? Could I be sued for breaching my duty? What if I do help, but screw it up out of panic? Could I be sued then for breaching a duty to act reasonably?
Sounds like a Catch 22.
You have no duty to rescue a stranger but if you decide to undertake a rescue you must act reasonably under the circumstances.
I have very little faith that a jury will be able to do so effectively. It’s too easy for lawyer for the plaintiff to say it was “reckless” for you to try help if you had no training. Or maybe your CPR card expired sixth months ago, “What? You’re no longer certified? Negligence!”
I would think it’s very rare for someone to actually be excessively negligent in most situations, but now someone can sue you for helping them up after they slipped on a grape and fell in the grocery store.
Yes, it is. 30% of cardiac patients who had CPR have cracked ribs. When I do a chest compression on you, there is a damned good chance that those ribs of yours will crack.
Are you opposed to Good Samaritan laws?
Welcome to the world of ivory tower judges and lawyers 
It should say catch 22 in fine print on their diplomas.
Hmm, I seem to remember a lot of controversy over crowds of people standing by watching someone brutally attacked in public. I’m wondering if it would be controversial to stand by and watch someone suffer further injuries as a result of my confusion over what would be the prudent course of action. Hmm…is that really gas I see leaking. It could be washer fluid or something. If I leave the victim in the car, will they be safe? Maybe it would be better to take her out in case it should suddenly catch fire. What if I do it wrong? I could lose everything. Gee, I don’t know what to do.
Would you hurry up and decide, already?? The flames are getting closer!
“One second! I am Googling “reasonable behavior around leaking fluid and wrecked car” on my iPhone and the 3G network keeps timing out.”
The problem is, even if the jury eventually finds that I did act reasonably, it’s enormously expensive to fight a lawsuit. Even if I’m entirely sure that I know what I’m doing, I’ve had years of training, yada yada, if I pull you out of a burning car, you can now sue me. Period. I don’t care if I win in the end, I don’t want to get sued. And that’s always gonna be in the back of my mind now - help someone, and maybe get sued? Or neither? And that’s the part that sucks.
As long as you don’t light a match to see if it’s is a gas leak you should be ok. I don’t know why you are making this so hard. If you see a car crash you are not required to do anything but if you decide to do something you are required not to act in an unreasonable manner. The bystander statutes make it a criminal offence to encourage a crime ie bystanders yelling encouragement to a rapist. If you happen to witness a rape and keep walking you are not criminally liable you get into trouble though if you stick around and cheer. Apples and oranges though.
But these:
Are all questions we want most rescuers to ask. We don’t want to encourage people to run around hysterically making things worse.
So what is my recourse if you give me CPR, you crack one of my ribs, and it turns out I didn’t need CPR after all?
The flip side is all anyone has to say is “But I was trying to help” to avoid getting sued. I agree that the civil law system is flawed and expensive but it is always a matter of balancing equities. If you claim someone injured you, you are entitled to sue them for damages. If a jury agrees you get some compensation if they don’t you are out of luck. Are you going to prohibit all law suits or just the ones where someone claims they had good intentions? Are good intentions enough to absolve someone for acting unreasonably?
I think it would indeed be unfortunate if the Cal law protected grossly negligent or reckless “samaritans” from liability for injuries they caused.
Does anyone doubt that it is at least reasonably possible that the injured drunk was worse off than she would have been had the helping drunk done nothing?
In the incident described, the idea that the “rescuer” could possibly bear costs does not offend me. It is unfortunate, however, if obtaining the correct result in this case were to dissuade others from acting compassionately in the future.
Under Good Samaritan - nothing. That is the idea - remove the risk of a lawsuit so that I have ZERO hesitation in jumping in to save your life.