The end of Good Samaritans

[vol_scouter]

The California Supreme Court has interpreted the state's Good Samaritan law in a narrow manner. A description may be found at:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/18/state/n134850S58.DTL

 

Essentially, a woman pulls her friend out of a car that the rescuer believes is going to explode. The victim suffered a C-spine injury resulting in paraplegia (though when the paraplegia occurred is contested). The court ruled that pulling the victim from a car about to explode is a rescue and not covered by the Good Samaritan Law which covers emergency medical care.

 

While I understand that the language of the law was followed, it is once again an example of reason being ignored. So be careful in rescuing someone because you have no legal protection at least in California. The court did say that one does not have an obligation to help. It seems to me that as humans, we should try to help one another even in a secular humanist society.

[MichaelOA]

So, not completely understanding. California no longer has protection for good Samaritans?

[Hal_Crawford]

So they followed the letter of the law rather than interpreting the intent of the law and perhaps expanding it to cover a circumstance that the lawmakers perhaps did not foresee? There's never an activist judge when you need one!

 

Hope courts in other states do not follow this example or better yet that state legislatures review and if necessary revise their good samaritan laws to cover this sort of situation.

[TheScout]

Interpreting the original intent of a law is very different than judicial activism. Originalist theories assert the laws have a fixed and knowable meaning. Meanwhile activists believe laws have a dynamic, flexible meaning.

[FireKat]

-sigh-

No good deed goes unpunished.....

 

[Narraticong]

Anyone with a backbone will continue to do the right thing. I'd rather deal with the potential bad consequences than have to live knowing I stood by and watched someone die when I could have helped.

 

That's one of the cool things about Faith. I am comfortable that helping other people at all times is what God wants me to do.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

I thought activist judges were simply those that made decisions we disagreed with.

 

SA

[FireKat]

Narraticong, I so agree with you! Problem is so few people are willing to do the right thing for fear of being sued (ie, no backbone). That is one reason I love scouting, it teaches to do the right thing, not just what is the 'cool' thing.

People with backbones need to band together to stop this type of stupidity. Change the law to protect those who are sued for unreasonable reasons when they are trying to do the right thing. Even if you win - you lose; money for lawyers, time from your life, health due to the stress, on and on...  Lawmakers need to think before they take away the common sense protection of doing what is morally right. Lawyers need to be punished for perscuting good people. I agee with Shakespear - "let's kill all the lawyers" (hold responsible for the damages they cause).

[SctDad]

The good Samaritan Law protects you from being found guilty. It does not protect you from being sued. The lady in this case sounds like she would have been sued either way, pulling her friend out, (sue) leave her in there to die, (family sues)

 

In all of my years in EMS, I have not seen a vehicle explode yet, but I have seen many people scared about it.

 

The way people sue is going to cause everyone to just pass by and say "someone else will so it" and keep going.

[NealOnWheels]

Here is California's Good Samaritan Law as it applies to non-professionals:

 

1799.102. 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. The scene

of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other

places where medical care is usually offered.

 

From what I have read the courts are saying the phrase "emergency care" really means "emergency medical care" so this law does not apply to this case.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, too much Hollywood, eh? Cars don't explode IRL, but they do burn eh? That can be quite dangerous.

 

This is the sort of ruling that only happens in a place like California. . Here the majority on the court eviscerate the Good Samaritan protection with one of da most convoluted arguments I've seen, arguin' "legislative intent" against the plain wording of the statute. And their construction of "legislative intent" as the dissenting opinion points out, is patently ridiculous. Yah, and clearly contrary to what many state courts would rule as obvious public policy interest. A bit like creatin' a gay marriage right out of thin air in the face of precedent and voter-approved statute. This court just seems to make stuff up.

 

I expect the California legislature will end up rectifyin' this, so the woman will in the end be spared a judgment, but not mountin' legal costs.

 

There is another interestin' issue here, in that it might be worthwhile for ARC to add a short bit in their CPR trainin' that talks about auto accidents and spinal injuries. Just enough so that the average civilian responder gets the "cars don't blow up" and "don't move the victim" messages. We should probably do that for our scouts too, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[MichaelOA]

How could someone sue someone for saving them, that's just... unbelievable. Sucks, I live in California o.O

[scoutldr]

Some friend...I'm surprised she's not suing the power company for putting the light pole in that particular spot.

[frank10]

I told you it was time to pull out of California.

 

[MissingArrow]

Anyone who feels they may be compelled to do the right thing no matter what the consequences should look into an umbrella policy.

 

Its a lot easier to act and get sued or judged then to live with the decision you made not to act...