Here's the best part:
"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..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4033454.story

I know how much you guys like to read...[&:]

California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care

[/align] [/align] 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.

[/align] By Carol J. Williams
December 19, 2008

[/align] In a decision that could give pause to would-be good Samaritans, 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.

Lisa Torti of Northridge now faces trial for allegedly contributing to the injuries suffered by fellow department store cosmetician Alexandra Van Horn, who was rendered a paraplegic in the car crash on Topanga Canyon Road that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.

[/align] [/align] The high court's narrow definition of who qualifies for immunity when coming to the aid of an accident victim drew criticism within its own ranks, with three of the seven justices deeming the ruling "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.

Writing for the majority in the 4-3 ruling, Justice Carlos R. Moreno said the court's primary duty was to determine the Legislature's intent in immunizing from prosecution certain persons whose good Samaritan acts aggravate or inflict injury.

"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 state's 1980 Health and Safety Code reads.

[/align] Because the relevant section is within the code's emergency medical services division, lawmakers probably intended it "to immunize from liability for civil damages only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Moreno wrote.

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."

In a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the minority deemed "illogical" recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical 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. "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."

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."

Neither Torti nor her attorney, Ronald D. Kent, could be reached immediately. Kent's Los Angeles law office said he was in meetings on the East Coast and may not have seen the decision.

Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, disputed the notion that the ruling could have a chilling effect on laymen coming to the rescue of the injured.

Good Samaritan laws have been on the books for centuries and state that "if a person volunteers to act, he or she must act with reasonable care," Hutchinson said.

"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car," he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion "irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.

Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.

Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of the costs of her life care and loss of potential income. Trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year, the lawyer said.

 

It dosen't pay to be a hero these days.

If I'm on a military base I have to try and save someone or I could be charged under the UCMJ for not doing anything. That goes for all military members while on base/post.

 

I think the woman is a complete idiot. The good Samaritan law shouldn't be modified for this case, she should just have her *** prosecuted. She probably saw steam from coolant getting blasted all over the exhaust manifold or something. Sooo stupid.

 

I will just keep going from now on. Well I might yell out the window "see ya suckers"

 

Is it me, or do the most *** backwards retarded laws all come from CA?

 

Hate to say it but seems they got it right this time. Good Samaritan law protects you in so far as you act with reasonable care. Yanking someone out that was just involved in an accident is risky ... ya coulda caught fire or exploded but she sat the injured girl down right next to the car. So kinda unreasonable behavior. Bish was prolly drunk ... or tipsy at best and over reacted. Do not think I could walk away from some one injured (unless I intentionally did the injuring) but I would hope to react with a modicum of decent judgement.

 

its CA. Let it sink into the ocean.

 

The most i've been known to do in the event of witnessing an accident is:report the accident, wait for Medics, give my report and go about my business.

 

Good Samaritan law? Are we getting paid ?NO, it looks like it's going to cost us. Not interested









No seriously,some ofyou guy may remember me giving theguythe Heimlich maneuver in the restaurant. I guess I'll just have to be a little more cautious hell the rules of engagement are changing everywhere. But I would prefer to see someone make the effort to save someone than just stand around worrying about whether or not they're going to be sued real Catch-22

guess I could've gotten sued
https://cbrforum.com/m_500243/tm.htm

 

The ultimate irony would be to know the Heimlich manoevre, not use it, the person dies and you get sued for wrongful death, because you didn't prevent it !!!!
What are we to do ? Get injured people to sign a disclaimer before we are allowed to help ?
I think your Judges have got it ***-backwards. I could never in good conscience award damages against someone who tries to help in a situation like that.
Clearly no wilful intent to injure the person, rather an effort to save them from further injury.
Chances are the injured person already had paraplegic level injuries, before intervention anyway..........
Hard to disprove in the circumstances...........
If I was defending, that would be the route I'd go.....