I am confused, so I can save someones life and be sued?
California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care…..The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car ‘like a rag doll,’ allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury. By Carol J. Williams
December 19, 2008 Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.
The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn’t immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn’t medical.
The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.
Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her “like a rag doll” from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing “an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation” on protections for those trying to help.
In 1980, the Legislature enacted the Health and Safety Code, which provides that “no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.”
Although that passage does not use the word “medical” in describing the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there, lawmakers intended to shield “only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency,” Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.
The high court cited no previous cases involving good Samaritan actions deemed unprotected by the state code, suggesting the challenge of Torti’s rescue effort was the first to narrow the scope of the law.
The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly “to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid.”
Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was “illogical” because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
“One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim,” Baxter wrote for the dissenters. “Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode.”
Both opinions have merit, “but I think the majority has better arguments,” said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and bioethics law at USC.
Shapiro said the majority was correct in interpreting that the Legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with “reasonable care,” as the law requires.
Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court’s message was that emergency care “should be left to medical professionals.”
Torti’s liability has yet to be determined in court, and if the Legislature is unhappy with any judgment arising from the immunity denial, it can revise the code, he concluded.
Torti, Van Horn and three other co-workers from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m., the justices noted as background.
Van Horn was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Anthony Glen Watson, whom she also sued, and Torti rode in the second car. After Watson’s car crashed into a light pole at about 45 mph, the rear car pulled off the road and driver Dion Ofoegbu and Torti rushed to help Watson’s two passengers escape the wreckage.
Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson’s vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out “like a rag doll.”
Van Horn’s suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal c
In Texas I believe we can get in trouble for not rendering aid so this is a catch 22 situation. How is that fair, oh wait, life is not fair.
flagging down a car is good idea especially if it protects me from law suit.
Sure can. People have been sued by a person they performed the Heimlich maneuver on because they broke a rib in doing so. Crazy huh? Would have been better off letting them choke.
The law has always said you must use reasonable care in giving the aid. Pulling someone from a car like a “rag doll” is not reasonable unless the car is on fire and there is a serious concern about the person being burned alive. That is what is claimed here but other witness saw no such indications. Also grabbing an arm is the wrong way to do it.
Older than the law is the old saying…”No good deed goes unpunished.”
But that should not stop you from doing the good deed, it just should make you think about what you are going to do.
The last thing you should do is move someone who is injured, unless they are in danger where they are. The person who moved the victim did the wrong thing.
Yeah, the California Supreme Court really dropped the ball on this one. Like the one dissenting justice noted, a passerby could save a person from a burning house and be liable for injuries inflicted in getting the victim to the sidewalk. However, that passerby would not be liable for any injuries while giving the victim CPR on the sidewalk.
It doesn’t make sense. Oh well. This is one of those issues that the legislature will almost surely revisit to re-draft the law.
And while the decision of the Court is baffling – at best – you can’t really blame them. When you have laws that are poorly written to start with, you get terrible decisions from the court.
yup, the world is falling apart. Some kid someday is going to be standing still at the playground and a windgust will come along and knock home down, cracking his head. The kid’s parents will sue, then it’s goodby to standing around.
thank all these lawyers who feel money is better than human life,too many lawyers who steal peoples money for themselves
NEVER NEVER go to any ones assistance in this country, let’em croak, as you see exactly what happens, even to saving their lives. Remember no good deed goes unpunished…a cardinal rule of life.
You just need to act in a reasonable manner. So jerking someone out of a car, unreasonable. Not knowing how to do the heimlich but giving it a shot becasue “what’s the worst that could happen?”, unreasonable. If you dont know what youre doing the best help is to get someone who does. Call 911, flag down another car, or just talk to the person who’s injured.
I’m an EMT in California. A few weeks ago, I was driving back home, minding my own business. I had to stop in the middle of a very busy freeway to assist a guy who had just jumped off from a freeway overpass. If you don’t know what you’re doing, determine where you’re at and simply call 911, period. They’ll give you some advice on what to do, anyway. Keep in mind that stopping at a car accident is very dangerous. Vehicles sometimes hit utility poles, which may cause electrical wires to hang (and electrocuting you). Rubberneckers (and drunk drivers) have a reputation of causing more accidents, possibly even running into you, your car, or the car accident itself. If you’re driving with your family, and happen to stumble upon an accident, don’t stop to help. You’ll be putting your family in danger. Call 911, instead. Stop at your own risk.
As for the good samaritan stating about the car catching on fire, airbags have powder inside. When airbags deploy, the car may look like it’s on fire, but in fact, it’s only the powder that burst out. Car accident-based explosions are actually rare. Unfortunately, the good samaritan didn’t know this. Medical professionals and good samaritans can be sued for being negligent.
Simply call 911, and leave the rest to the professionals. Vehicle extrications can sometimes be very challenging for even Firefighters. They’re challenging because they have to take the victim’s injuries into consideration. A person who attempts a rescue on their own without this knowledge is a recipe for disaster. Off-duty Firefighters and EMTs don’t even attempt to drag out victims out of their cars. It’s nice to know that there are good people out there willing to help, but they have to stop for a moment and use common sense.