The question is not shielding non-professionals. That is EXACTLY what Good Sam laws do. The question is whether or not the CA Good Sam law is just for providing medical help, or any help.
Read the BSA brief I linked. They point out that the plain language intro to the law is clear that it is to protect people helping out in emergencies. This is also what the dissent said - that the law is there for helping out in emergencies and not just providing medical care.
I will happily apply some blame (say 30%) to the CA lawmakers who did not connect enough dots. But I still believe that the majority of the Pitting (the remaining 70%) is applied to the majority on the CA Supreme Court who have decided that this only applies to medical care.
Very interesting reading and discussion to this point in the thread.
I think it is important to note the impact that this ruling has had just on the people within this thread. The ramifications of this ruling have already turned several people’s attitudes around regarding administering help to a person in need in California. In that respect alone, this judgment has damaged the likelihood of people helping others in that state, perhaps irrepairably so. That will inevitably mean more deaths in California due to the inaction of those who might have done some good but have been disuaded from doing so by this precedent. The point, as I see it, is not whether someone acted rightly or wrongly in this case, but that the masses now have learned that there are potential dire consequences for trying to act in someone else’s best interests.
I, for one, would not even remotely consider attempting to provide non-medical assitance to someone in the State of California at this point, for fear of being dragged back to the state for a lawsuit that I’d probably win anyway, but wind up being bankrupted by. Maybe this makes me a bad person, but I’ll leave that judgment to the history books and The Powers That Be.
This is the heart of the matter IMHO. There seem to be several reasons that this case should go to trial and the flaws in the law corrected by the legislature. Chief among them, was the defendant so drunk as to be incapable of providing reasonable aid, and should the GS law exclude her and others from protection for that reason? Among other issues.
But the worst possible reason is to say the GS law only applies to non-medical personnel rending medical aid. So Kerry Weaver would have to carry the victim to safety but then stand idly by while Joe the Plumber performs the tracheotomy? Is that what the legislature had in mind?
There was no fire. Fires in car accidents are actually pretty rare (like 1-2% of all accidents), explosions are orders of magnitude more rare than fires.
Even if the car actually did catch on fire…I, a trained EMT would have pretty much yanked her ass like a ragdoll ( ok maybe with a little more care and grace but…quickly). No fire, no immediate threat to persons life, don’t move her till you are ready and or have to. Most of what people see and think is smoke is steam from damaged radiators and or hoses.
The amount of fuel anywhere near the engine of a car these days is maybe a few ounces, hardly enough to blow up anything. If a fire does start, you will still have at least a minute or two to pull someone out before its going to spread to the passenger areas. Longer if its a newer car with minimal if any oil leakage in the engine compartment. We put out small engine fires several times with an extinguisher if we were there and fire dept was nowhere in sight yet.
That is some of the most concise and insitghtful cutting through of the bullshit I’ve seen.
So, if a normal person tries something normal, like getting someone out of the car, lifting something off of somebody, pulling them outa the water, or putting out a fire with a fire extinquisher they better make damn sure they do it “right” or they will get sued!
On the other hand, if they decide to render “medical” aid, which they likely won’t have a fricking clue as to what they are doing, they get a free pass.
Yeah, lets encourage folks to NOT do what they can probably pull off and encourage them to try stuff they are not nearly as likely to do correctly.
No its a giant hyperbole like half of the other stuff in the thread. MD’s often do not enjoy GS protections because they have a licence that says “I DO KNOW” what to do.
Like many posts in this thread you are throwing wild scenarios with zero experience in the feild and no relevant detail.
Nope, as an example, I as an ex-EMT despite enjoying protections of GS acts would not allow me to exceed my scope of practice as an EMT. I don’t get to yell “good sam” and start IV fluids or insert an endotracheal airway. If I tried, I would most likely be sued for trying, especially if it didnt work.
No how about they do what they know, if they don’t have enough information about what to do, doing nothing is a viable option.
I’m still somewhat torn on this case. I think that in general people should have protection for rescues. It’s in society’s best interest that someone not be sued for, say, rescuing a drowning swimmer. In this case, though, I don’t think that it was reasonable to pull the patient from the car. As people have mentioned, cars almost never explode as the result of a crash. In addition, the article says:
If Torti was intoxicated, she had no business attempting any sort of rescue. We don’t allow intoxicated people to make decisions about their own medical care, let alone someone else’s. I’ll admit I might be biased by the fact that I’ve seen people do a lot of stupid shit before the ambulance gets there.
