If your family’s livelihood is more important to you than saving my life, then of course you need to decide what’s the right choice for you.
I am fully aware of how laws are both written (Legislative), Executed (Executed) and Interpreted (Judicial).
I am also fully aware that some judges come in with their own opinions, that do not necessarily match that of the intent of the Legislature. There ARE judges who go off on a bender at times. As a matter of fact, we can look at the dissent on this very case to get a different view. Gee - it appears that the judges don’t agree with each other! The minority agrees with me - that the Good Samaritan law was there to protect Good Samaritans. The majority decided that it only works for medical, and does not apply to anything else (like saving your life - apparently that is not rendering medical aid).
My OP stated that I hope that the CA Legislature cleans this up. Maybe you missed that part.
If your ability to sue is more important that your life, that is your choice.
I don’t want to give up my ability to prevent people who don’t know what they’re doing from making my situation in an accident worse than it would be if they hadn’t intervened. Thank you for allowing me my choice.
Algher, where do you draw the line? I mean we see how you feel about a hysterical drunk chick dragging a person with a neck injury like a rag doll out of a not burning car, but what if she had grabbed a clearly labeled can a gasoline and thrown it on a sparking wire to “put it out” and the ensuing explosion killed the victim? Still immune?
Hey
I am just hoping you get to walk the walk that you are talking 
You are a fucking moron. One of the assholes that died during my attempt to save him threw up blood into my mouth. He was an IV drug user, CA privacy laws prohibit me from finding out if he had aids so I had to get tested every fucking six months for a couple of years. I had to use a condom with my wife all that time. I worried about it because he was a drug user and to top it off he killed himself. I still jumped into the American River three years ago to pull out a drowning drunk idiot and gave him CPR I didn’t hesitate I didn’t whine about maybe getting sued or maybe going through the whole AIDS scare again, I just did what was needed. I have walked the walk asshole. If your response to seeing a person in jeopardy is to wonder if you will be sued then no you shouldn’t bother. I am not suggesting that anyone needs to try to rescue anyone but if you do you can’t be an idiot about it. If you are not capable or competent the best thing you can do is find someone who is.
Actually, you don’t see that. You see me concerned about opening up liability to a lot of people trying to do the right thing. Based on the article (which we all know is going to be missing a fair amount of facts), it appears to me that this woman thought that the car was in danger of catching on fire, and wanted to get her friend out of there. This was rendering aid in an accident, the type of situation that I (and the minority) believe is covered by the Good Samaritan act.
Now - does that mean that the liability shield will protect a few idiots who did harm? Yes it does. However, the reason that Good Samaritan laws were passed is so that people could safely act to help others without fear of being sued. If you take away that liability shield, fewer people will step in to help. I think that the NET results of the Good Samaritan laws is more Good Samaritans doing the right thing. I think that removing that protection will reduce the number of Good Samaritans and resultant lives saved, etc.
Where do you draw the line? You want to sue the Boy Scout for malpractice because he put Neosporin on your leg and you are deadly allergic to it? Do you want to take me to court because I cracked your ribs administering CPR and turned out that you were not actually having a heart attack?
Actually - you were protected by the law each time you did that if you did it as a Good Samaritan. I don’t know how the GS law works in CA in regards to volunteer EMTs (in some states if you are part of the volunteer FD you are covered instead by the state’s liability coverage).
If you eliminate the Good Samaritan protection you are CHOOSING to have educated, trained people ALSO not help you out of fear of a lawsuit. Now, there might be some pure altruists like **askeptic **who will try to help you no matter what. However, you are reducing the available pool of rescuers by making them liable.
This case law WILL reduce the number of Good Samaritans. There will be a few people with training out there who will choose not to get involved now for fear of lawsuit, or they will hesitate to act while second guessing themselves (whoops - there goes 10 IQ points while we wait!).
Anecdote (to illustrate, not prove, my point). A friend is a Doc. He REFUSES to get involved in medical cases. This is because one of his partners was sued for malpractice after getting involved and adminstering care. When sued it was pointed out that he was helping out in an area that was not his specialty. The Good Samaritan law did not apply because he WAS a trained professional, and his malpractice did not cover him because he was not acting in the context of his practice. The asshole decided to take him to court to see what he could get. $50,000 later in defense costs he was found not liable, but he didn’t get his money back. He is now a loud advocate to other doctors to stay out of it and let them die.
Sure if he was an adult and knew that I was deathly allergic and that neosporin allergy is common knowledge.
You bet your ass I do if I was just asleep on the beach and you jumped on me and cracked my ribs. I don’t really give a shit if you claim you were trying to rescue me. The issue is reasonableness. I draw the line the same place the courts have for hundreds of years. It is called the reasonably prudent person standard. I feel that if you cause injury due to your failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner under the circumstances I don’t think your good intention should protect you.
Would you vote to end the Good Samaritan laws?
Bolded for clarity, and so I can get my own thoughts organized.
In a real “holy shit” emergency, there is usually no time to think things out and consider “reasonable care”. At least, not in the mind of the victim or the would be Good Samaritan. Both probably will be in some level of panic. In their minds, it’s either act NOW or forget it.
I’m afraid that if this sticks, and you (any of you) are in a burning building with me, my best option (for me) will be to get out and leave you. I mean, you might sue me for not carefully weighing all the options, and you might get bruised if I try to help you out. Tough luck, kid.
Sarcasm aside, that’s what this “ruling” is saying, that I should just leave you to burn.
To the extent that they absolve people of responsibility for UNREASONABLY careless or reckless acts, yes. With the understanding that what may seem unreasonable in hindsight may have been perfectly reasonable at the time.
Could you provide some cites that Good Samaritans getting sued and losing their homes is a problem? Not a few random examples but some statistics that show this to be a problem. I just don’t see it.
It hasn’t been a problem thanks to the Good Samaritan laws (IMHO and IANAL). My initial Google-fu is lacking in finding any particular incidents that triggered the laws. The wiki is pretty light as well:
Interesting question though.
As a working Paramedic I have to chime in on this CPR nonsense. Cracking someone’s ribs is not a good indicator of effective CPR. Cracked ribs is an awesome indicator of a very traumatic and an additional life threatening injury.
Ribs have blood vessels which run along below them. These vessels are not made of steel and ribs are not prone to breaking bluntly with no sharp edges. Even after all this your ribs are there to protect your heart, lungs, and great vessels. Snapping them like twigs so you know you are doing good CPR is kinda defeating this purpose and doing more harm then good.
Now nothing is with out exception, but if you want a good indicator of good CPR just have someone check for a carotid pulse next time. No one around to do that? Ok just do the best you can, but please give the ribs a break!
Yay you. The only accident I’ve seen first-hand is the one I was in. So I guess we can agree that experience (or lack thereof) can color one’s response to an emergency, no?
WEll, you may see it as stupid, and someone else may see it as panic, which is a perfectly natural response and doesn’t have anything to do with intelligence. Her defense: I thought I saw gas leaking, I thought the car might explode, I thought my friend might die. Her intent was clearly to remove her friend from danger as quickly as possible. Instead she paralyzed her and may very well be remorseful about it. But at the time, she thought she was doing the right thing out of concern for her friend. Too bad. Now everyone else gets to decide in the full light of day and at their own leisure whether she did the right thing regardless of her intent.
Even if she prevails, she’s still suffered the great expense and public humiliation of a trial in spite of her intent to be a good samaritan. No, this doesn’t compare to what the accident victim suffered, but it also doesn’t fix her situation either.
I’d like to think I’m a compassionate person, but I have a family, too that I would not like to see suffer over an unfortunate accident. Why even bother put my family’s and my well-being on the line for that kind of thanks? Besides, with that risk hanging over my head, I probably wouldn’t be able to make a sound decision anyway.
This is so common as to make the Good Samaritan laws actually a danger to the vast majority of people out there. I love these analogies born of fiction.
The irony is that this woman hasn’t even had a trial and you’ve already decided that she acted unreasonably. She’s already been called stupid and a drunk. Thanks for making the case for me.