Good Samaritans Can Be Sued Eh?
 

Wow The Nerve of this B*tch, Thanks to her we have to think twice before we help someone, maybe the samaritan should have left her in the car to die, by her obvious lack of morals, it doesn't seem like a huge loss to world, Rant Over! C'mon CA!

The case, Van Horn v Torti, pits Alexandra Van Horn, who was injured as a passenger in a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph in November of 2004, against Lisa Torti who was a co-worker and friend of Van Horn's following in a car behind Van Horns who attempted to pull Van Horn out of the vehicle in the fear that her car might ignite in to flame.

Van Horn now blames Torti for her being paralyzed and has brought suit against Torti for damages, and the California Supreme Court has given the lawsuit a green light based on the assumption that the state's Good Samaritan Law only protects you when administering emergency medical care, not when you attempt to rescue others from potentially life threatening situations, like pulling a drowning victim out of the water or pulling someone from a burning car.

The AP (12/19, Elias) reports, "Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car 'like a rag doll' can be sued." The court wrote "that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid" but once they do, "he or she has a duty to exercise due care."

Also, "Appellate specialist Lisa Perrochet, a partner with Encino, Calif.'s Horvitz & Levy who wasn't involved in the case, had what will likely be the average person's take on the ruling: 'Remind me not to try to help anyone escape from burning buildings or fast-flowing rivers," she said in an e-mail. But in a follow-up message, she added that in hindsight reasonable people could disagree." She added, "If it's not an emergency that requires quick thinking to avoid serious injury...then one should apply the regular rule that if you offer aid you'd better be doing it non-negligently.'"

The Recorder (12/19, McKee) reports that the "high court held that a state statute immunizing rescuers from liability applies only if the individual is providing medical care in an emergency situation." However, "it doesn't apply when Good Samaritans accidently cause injuries while, for example, pulling someone out of a burning house or diving into swirling waters to save a drowning swimmer." The Los Angeles Times (12/19, Williams) also covers the story.

End of Good samaratan will mean bad things to those in simple need. People may ignore emergencies in fear of law suits...:rolleyes:

Fixed your post for you.

However, let's remember this is California. I know their Federal courts are overturned more often than any other. Perhaps this will be, as well.

:thumbup:

Watched that this morning....FAILURE. If she had 3rd degree burns over 50% of her body, she'd probably sue him for NOT helping.

Even though medical professionals get qualified immunity, most physicians I know would rather just call 9-1-1 than go hands on.

I would definitely think three times before rendering aid.

Seriously, who cares about even winning the lawsuit as a defendant. Once your in a law suit, you've already lost, regardless of outcome..

No thanks, I'll just call 9-1-1.

The lawsuit is obviously silly - the person was just trying to help. But the 'good samaritan' really should not have moved the victim of the crash. In first aid classes I've always been taught to move people around only if there is danger outweighing the risk of causing further damage. Asuming that the car was not burning and the victim was breathing there was no risk of letting them stay in the car, until people who actually knew what they are doing arrived.