'Good Samaritan' can be sued after pulling friend from car wreckage

"The moral here is if you are rescuing or helping someone in an emergency, be sure and administer some medical care. Carry Band-Aids!"



'Good Samaritan' can be sued after pulling friend from car wreckage

The California Supreme Court has been accused of undermining the concept of the Good Samaritan after it allowed a paralysed woman to sue the friend who pulled her out of a crashed car.

By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 1:20AM GMT 20 Dec 2008


Alexandra Van Horn claims that Lisa Torti pulled her out of the vehicle, which had just crashed into a lamp post at 45mph, "like a rag doll" and contributed to her injuries.
Miss Torti, who was travelling in the car behind, says she believed the wrecked vehicle was about to burst into flames.
In a landmark decision that critics have said only proves the maxim that no good deed goes unpunished, the court decided that California's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency aid.
Justice Carlos Moreno noted in the ruling that people were not obligated to come to someone's aid but, if they did so, they had a "duty to exercise due care".
The 4-3 ruling was criticised by dissenting judges as "illogical" and that the legislation clearly aimed "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid".
The two women and three other staff from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, leaving at 1.30am in two cars.
Ms Van Horn's lawyers questioned why Ms Torti, having pulled her out by her shoulder, "dropped" her next to the car if she believed it was about to explode.
"The moral here is if you are rescuing or helping someone in an emergency, be sure and administer some medical care. Carry Band-Aids!" said Jim Porter, a California lawyer.

 

[NOTE THAT I AM NOT GIVING ANY LEGAL ADVICE HERE SO DO NOT RELY ON THIS POST FOR LEGAL INFORMATION!]

Good Samaritans are usually protected unless they act negligently. I don't know the standard in California but usually it is something along the lines of "Did the Good Samaritan act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the circumstances of the emergency?" In this case, I suspect that the plaintiff will have to prove that the Good Samaritan could not reasonably have believed that the car was going to burst into flames and that but for the acts of the good samaritan, she would not have been further injured.

Ugly case and it will get ugly publicity.

 

[USUAL DISCLAIMER THAT I AM NOT GIVING LEGAL ADVICE]
Generally, it does depend on whether the Good Samaritan is a medical care giver/first responder or an average person. The standard is along the lines of did the Good Samaritan act reasonably under the circumstances of the emergency and considering their training and knowledge.

I agree that part of the problem is that anyone can sue and even if they lose, the defendant is out a bundle of money from his or her own legal fees.

 

These are the same judicial morons who think they know better on the same sex marriage issue too.....

 

this encourages people to be indiffrerent, that's all we needed in our selfish society. This person needs a medal, not lawsuit. The next time she sees and accident, she'll think twice before she saves a life... Sad....

 

After reading the story about the guy who helped the WWII vet with his insurance deductible, this is disturbing. I cling to the hope that there are more good people than bad!

 

I dont know about her, but I would be much happier on the side of the road than in a crashed car.

 

And of course if she hadn't have dragged her friend from the car and it did burst into flame people would have condemed her for not trying.

 

More on the story,

Bumbling Good Samaritan can be sued


Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 19, 2008


12-18) 17:43 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A Good Samaritan whose well-meaning but careless rescue effort injures an accident victim can be sued for damages, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.




The court said California's shield against liability for emergency help applies only to people trying to provide medical help.
The 4-3 ruling allows a 27-year-old Los Angeles woman to go to trial in her suit against a friend who pulled her out of a wrecked car and, in the process, allegedly caused injuries that left her permanently paralyzed. The friend, Lisa Torti, said she had seen smoke and thought the car was about to explode, but other witnesses said they had seen no signs of danger.
The court majority said the law Torti cited to try to dismiss the lawsuit was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently. Dissenting justices said the ruling would discourage people from trying to save lives.
The case dates from 2004, when a group of friends including Torti and Alexandra Van Horn left a bar in suburban Chatsworth (Los Angeles County) in two cars after a Halloween party.
The car in which Van Horn was a passenger went out of control and hit a light pole. Torti, in the other car, pulled Van Horn out just before emergency crews arrived to take her to the hospital, where she underwent surgery for a spinal cord injury and a lacerated liver.
Torti testified that she had carried her friend out carefully, with one arm under her legs and one behind her back. But Van Horn said Torti had grabbed her by the arm and yanked her out.
Other witnesses said Torti had set Van Horn down next to the car, despite Torti's testimony that she was worried the vehicle would blow up.
Torti sought to dismiss the suit under a 1980 state law that bars damage suits against anyone who "in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency" - even for negligent acts that injure the victim.
Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.
Read the ruling

The court's ruling can be read at:
links.sfgate.com/ZFSI


The case is Van Horn vs. Watson, S152360.

 

It would make more sense to me if Van Horn would have sued the driver of the car she was riding in that went out of control and crashed. That is where the problem lay to start with. I am sure the driver had too much to drink. Also Van Horn should have gotton an insurance settlement out of the drivers insurance.
Of course if the driver had no insurance then I guess Van Horn went after someone else for the money.
IMHO she has the morals of the Governor of ILL.

 

From another forum:

 

Exactly

 

"Damned if you do and damned if you don't"

 

It gets more complex when the rescuer is under some duty to rescue. There are circumstances where you can face liability for not rescuing as well (e.g., a lifegaurd or first responder).

 

i'm on the volunteer fire department in my town, and the whole medical issues can get pretty crazy. technically, once we get there, only the EMT certified people can treat them, but we're allowed to assist under their explicit directions. no ones ever sued to my knowlege, but we did have some drunk dude come running out of a car that had hit a tree at 80 mph and swing on our guys. what this woman did is a good thing. the best thing to do if the car is not burning or about to blow though, is to keep the victim calm, make sure they don't move, and wait for the EMTs to arrive

 

One thing that comes to mind in this situation: Take responsibility if you do take action.

 

If a fireman saves my life with a heart massage , I won't sue him if he breaks a rib, I will thank him. that's how I see it.

 

That's why people don't get involved anymore. Why no one stops to help a stranded motorist and what not.

A similar story from where I grew up is, a burglar was breaking into someone's home, slipped and busted his head and then sued the homeowner and WON! Go figure...

 

Exactly. Why help anyone anymore when you can be sued for just caring and trying to help. I guess it would have been easier to let someone burn to death if it happened.