View Full Version : California "Good Samaritan" incident
Be interesting to see how this eventually plays out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection
And when people fail to stop and help they will then pass a law making you liable if the person gets injured.
Must not have been that good of friends. It's unfortunate to think that trying to help is punishable. It makes me think of that quote about evil prevailing.
These types of examples have made me choose to never help anyone in need unless they are under immediate threat from an attacker. This world and its laws just don't make life threatening decisions easy, so better to avoid it all together.
I wonder what would happen in this scenario:
Say there is a person standing somewhere (warehouse for example), and something very big was going to fall on them from very high up. As the object is falling, there is no time for warning. So you run to the person and give them a shove with your arms or leg but instead, it doesn't push them out of the way and makes them stumble, thus allowing the object to fall on them. As a result, they are either seriously injured or even killed.
What happens to the would-be rescuer? Did he/she commit a crime? Can they be sued?
And when people fail to stop and help they will then pass a law making you liable if the person gets injured.
Froma local legal website:
"In reality every state has some form of a Good Samaritan Law, however only a very few states impose a criminal penalty if you fail to help someone in need"
So, for some states such laws are already in place.
CarlosDJackal
12-20-08, 17:17
In hindsight, maybe she probably should have let her ungrateful "friend" become a Darwinism candidate. :rolleyes:
Exactly how does soneone pull someone out of a car wreckage "like a rag doll"?
trukreltrog
12-20-08, 17:52
Froma local legal website:
"In reality every state has some form of a Good Samaritan Law, however only a very few states impose a criminal penalty if you fail to help someone in need"
So, for some states such laws are already in place.
Thats our screwed up society. Help someone you get could be sued, don't help someone you could be get sued. :confused:
AirmanAtwood
12-21-08, 11:12
In hindsight, maybe she probably should have let her ungrateful "friend" become a Darwinism candidate. :rolleyes:
Exactly how does soneone pull someone out of a car wreckage "like a rag doll"?
you grab them by a limb and with one hand pull their entire body out of the car with immense force. You then proceed to toss them out of the car 40 ft from the wreck. It happens all the time :p
The court did not rule that the helper was in fact liable for the injuries suffered by the accident victim; it held that the statutory immunity does not apply to her since she was not a health care professional, which is the category of persons granted immunity by the statute.
The case hasn't been tried yet, so the factual issues, i.e., whether the helper was negligent in how she helped, have not yet been adjudicated.
All this really means is that a helper who acts negligently and increases or aggravates the extent of injury may be liable for those damages caused by his or her negligence.
Good Samaritan immunity laws generally only apply to health care and emergency response professionals.
The appeals court got it right. This is not a radical decision at all. The general rule has always been that you have no duty to rescue anyone, but if you DO undertake to rescue someone, you must use reasonable care in doing so.
Moving a potentially spine-injured crash victim, unless that car was really about to be engulfed in flame, is a boneheaded move. The parties here will get to put on evidence and a jury will decide if it was reasonable under the circumstances.
The court did not rule that the helper was in fact liable for the injuries suffered by the accident victim; it held that the statutory immunity does not apply to her since she was not a health care professional, which is the category of persons granted immunity by the statute.
The case hasn't been tried yet, so the factual issues, i.e., whether the helper was negligent in how she helped, have not yet been adjudicated.
All this really means is that a helper who acts negligently and increases or aggravates the extent of injury may be liable for those damages caused by his or her negligence.
Good Samaritan immunity laws generally only apply to health care and emergency response professionals.Its different from Jurisdiction to jurisdiction:
In some jurisdictions, unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or the "Good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim. Good Samaritan statutes in the states of Minnesota and Vermont do include a duty to assist subdivision requiring a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a person in need.[5] This assistance may be to call 9-1-1. Violation of the duty to assist subdivision is a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota and may warrant a fine of up to $100 in Vermont. At least five other states including California and Nevada have seriously considered adding duty to assist subdivisions to their Good Samaritan Statutes.[6]
This is I don't help people. I'll call 911 but my assistance ends there. I can't put the welfare of my family before some stranger or co-worker.
"In reality every state has some form of a Good Samaritan Law, however only a very few states impose a criminal penalty if you fail to help someone in need"
If someone can cite me a statute that shows I have a legal duty to intervene to help someone in mortal peril, I'd like to see it.
More importantly, if someone can show me a statute that says I have both a legal duty to intervene and simultaneously I can be deemed negligent if my intervention results in injury, I'd definitely like to see that. I won't go to that state ever again.
The case hasn't been tried yet, so the factual issues, i.e., whether the helper was negligent in how she helped, have not yet been adjudicated.
Exactly. The media's reporting of the event spectaularizes it, just like the now-infamous McDonald's coffee burn case. But, as in that case, perhaps we're only hearing the pre-spun version of this story.
The rescuer claims he was worried the car might catch on fire. What, if any, evidence is there to support that presumption?
What, if any, evidence shows that the victim was suffering from a head/spinal injury and thus should not have been moved?
What, if any, medical or emergency response training did the "rescuer" have?
Was the rescuer himself drunk at the time of the accident?
Etc.
Look at it this way: suppose an elderly family member of yours is stuck on the side of the road with a flat tire. Some young fellow comes along and offers to change the tire. Ten miles down the road, the improperly installed tire flies off and your relatives die in a car crash. Do you think that "young fellow" should be immune from a negligence claim just because he says he was trying to help?
This case may very well turn out to be one in which the rescuer is found not liable of any wrongdoing. Just because the court says he isn't immune doesn't mean he is automatically screwed. Now, like anyone else, he'll have his actions judged to determine if they were reasonable or not. If they were, he's home free. If they weren't, he's toast.
edited to add:
This is I don't help people. I'll call 911 but my assistance ends there. I can't put the welfare of my family before some stranger or co-worker.
Yeah, I need to remember that point the next time a buddy wants to spend some time on the range getting some free instruction. I mean, if he gets hurt, he might sue me. I should stop doing that. :p
"Quote:
Originally Posted by g5m
"In reality every state has some form of a Good Samaritan Law, however only a very few states impose a criminal penalty if you fail to help someone in need"
If someone can cite me a statute that shows I have a legal duty to intervene to help someone in mortal peril, I'd like to see it.
More importantly, if someone can show me a statute that says I have both a legal duty to intervene and simultaneously I can be deemed negligent if my intervention results in injury, I'd definitely like to see that. I won't go to that state ever again."
As mentioned, that came from a legal website. They didn't quote statutes so I can't help you there.
I can tell you that I've lived in two states where the legislatures considered such laws and did not pass them.
AwaySooner
12-21-08, 14:39
There's more to the story actually. This "good samaritan" is apparently f'up, stoned and drunk. The car was not on fire and EMT just minutes away. This "good samaritan" pulled the victim out of the car recklessly and damage the spinal cord.
If someone can cite me a statute that shows I have a legal duty to intervene to help someone in mortal peril, I'd like to see it.
More importantly, if someone can show me a statute that says I have both a legal duty to intervene and simultaneously I can be deemed negligent if my intervention results in injury, I'd definitely like to see that. I won't go to that state ever again.
Vermont
Duty to Aid the Endangered Act (Good Samaritan Law)
Title 12, Chapter 23 ;SS 519:
Emergency Medical Care
(a) A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.
(b) A person who provides reasonable assistance in compliance with subsection (a) of this section shall not be liable in civil damages unless his actions constitute gross negligence or unless he will receive or expects to receive remuneration.Nothing contained in this subsection shall alter existing law with respect to tort liability of a practitioner of the healing arts for acts committed in the ordinary course of his practice.
(c) A person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $100.00 -- 1967 No. 309(adjourned session) SS 2-4 effective March 22, 1968.
...and Minnesota
604A.01
Good Samaritan law
Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Subdivision 2. General immunity from liability.
(a) A person who, without compensation or the expectation of compensation, renders emergency care, advice, or assistance at the scene of an emergency or during transit to a location where professional medical care can be rendered, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by that person in rendering the emergency care, advice, or assistance, unless the person acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance. This subdivision does not apply to a person rendering emergency care, advice, or assistance during the course of regular employment, and receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering the care, advice, or assistance.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the scene of an emergency is an area outside the confines of a hospital or other institution that has hospital facilities, or an office of a person licensed to practice one or more of the healing arts under chapter 147, 147A, 148, 150A, or 153. The scene of an emergency includes areas threatened by or exposed to spillage, seepage, fire, explosion, or other release of hazardous materials, and includes ski areas and trails.
(c) For the purposes of this section, "person" includes a public or private nonprofit volunteer firefighter, volunteer police officer, volunteer ambulance attendant, volunteer first provider of emergency medical services, volunteer ski patroller, and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.
(d) For the purposes of this section, "compensation" does not include payments, reimbursement for expenses, or pension benefits paid to members of volunteer organizations.
No Good Samaritan Law that I'm aware of protects against gross negligence, nor do they mean one can't be sued. A court will determine whether or not ones actions were/are negligent and are/aren't covered under whatever Good Samaritan law may be applicable. In some jurisdictions, aside from negligence, Good Samaritan laws are an affirmative defense if the caregiver causes unintentional injury in the course of attempting to render aid. So long as the caregiver doesn't exceed the level of their training (if any) and doesn't do something completely stupid ("your honor, her head was bleeding and I thought a tourniquet around the neck would work"), they're generally ok.
I'd be interested in finding out how they know that the spinal injury was caused by the extraction from the vehicle and wasn't already present as a result of the crash.
RWK -- Interesting, thanks!
Now here's a point to ponder: Both statutes specify it's only required if the aid can be given "without danger or peril" to the rescuer. One could argue that being exposed to potential liability for gross negligence is very much a "danger or peril." For example, being now familiar with this California case, anyone could easily use it as an excuse for not helping someone out of a car after a crash, or in any other situation in which someone could, conceivably, have spinal cord damage.
The MN law specifically says that calling the cops/ambulance can satisfy the requirement.
The VT law specifies a maximum fine of $100, while the MN one is $300. You cannot be jailed for violating these crimes.
RWK -- Interesting, thanks!
You're welcome!
Now here's a point to ponder: Both statutes specify it's only required if the aid can be given "without danger or peril" to the rescuer. One could argue that being exposed to potential liability for gross negligence is very much a "danger or peril." For example, being now familiar with this California case, anyone could easily use it as an excuse for not helping someone out of a car after a crash, or in any other situation in which someone could, conceivably, have spinal cord damage.
I'm not sure that would fly. When I read it, I interpret "danger or peril" as referring to imminent physical harm - car on fire, structural collapse, etc. I'm wondering aloud if there's any case law or precedent that addresses the definitions...?
All right, let's try another tact, then ...
I'm not trained to deal with automobile wreck injuries. Therefore, I have no idea what constitutes "aid" and what constitutes "gross negligence." I am trained to deal with juries, though, and I know that the real-world definition of "gross negligence" is going to have more to do with who's on the jury and who has the best lawyer than the actual actions of the person in question.
Therefore, I'd make the argument that I was unsure whether any action I might take -- beyond calling the cops/ambulance -- would help or harm.
I'm not saying I wouldn't try to help, regardless of the law. But I am offended by legislating such behavior, especially when it comes with an implicit risk of legal liability.
Yeah, I need to remember that point the next time a buddy wants to spend some time on the range getting some free instruction. I mean, if he gets hurt, he might sue me. I should stop doing that. :p
Obviously I was speaking about strangers and just some random co-worker...
But just in case I have an exemption for anyone with the initials of TLG that is providing free instruction :D
Ipsilateral_7
12-21-08, 19:00
The court did not rule that the helper was in fact liable for the injuries suffered by the accident victim; it held that the statutory immunity does not apply to her since she was not a health care professional, which is the category of persons granted immunity by the statute.
Good Samaritan immunity laws generally only apply to health care and emergency response professionals.
This isn't true. The good samaritan laws (in most states) are for protection for lay people as well as health care. The good samaritan laws ARE NOT for EMT/Paramedics/etc who are acting in the line of duty. The laws generally hold that the Samaritan's are held to the same standard of their level of training, i.e., a paramedic isn't going to be doing thoracotomies and doing open heart massage in the field. Also how the components which is generally allowed as an exemption from law suit is that beside Vermont, I know of no states which mandate providers with BLS/ACLS/Paramedics/nurses/Docs have a duty to treat people in need. Without a mandated duty to treat, you can not be held liable unless you over-step your training.
The appeals court got it right. This is not a radical decision at all. The general rule has always been that you have no duty to rescue anyone, but if you DO undertake to rescue someone, you must use reasonable care in doing so.
That's not how the statutes are worded in any of the states I've lived in or have practiced medicine are worded.
Moving a potentially spine-injured crash victim, unless that car was really about to be engulfed in flame, is a boneheaded move. The parties here will get to put on evidence and a jury will decide if it was reasonable under the circumstances.
Do we know if the car was buring or about to burn in this instance?
Robb Jensen
12-21-08, 19:06
Obviously I was speaking about strangers and just some random co-worker...
But just in case I have an exemption for anyone with the initials of TLG that is providing free instruction :D
Me too, when I grow up I want to shoot just like him! :p
That's not how the statutes are worded in any of the states I've lived in or have practiced medicine are worded.
Do we know if the car was buring or about to burn in this instance?
1. Some states have different laws that apply to people with specific medical training. All of those are modifications of the general common law rule, taught in every law school first year torts class to every law student in America, that there is no duty to rescue in most circumstances but that you have a duty to use reasonable care if you DO undertake to rescue. This is basic black letter law. If you operated under different rules, as a medical provider, in specific states, then you are the exception. Not the rule.
2. Given your training, you presumably would not be so boneheaded as to move a potential spinal injury without proper equipment and help.
3. The person who did the moving here claims that she was afraid it was going to catch fire. Whether she had any objective basis for that (i.e., smelled gas, actual fire started, etc.) is why this case is going back down for a trial where they can drill down into all of those details.
Alpha Sierra
12-22-08, 15:17
You cannot be held liable for injuring someone while helping them if you do not help them or even attempt to help them.
You cannot be held liable for not helping someone if you simply do not stop where something that doesn't involve you is going on, or if you happen to be there when it happens, you split immediately.
Remember, you are responsible first and foremost for your safety and that of your loved ones. Make sure you stay safe by removing yourself from any potentially dangerous incident where someone has been hurt.
Ipsilateral_7
12-25-08, 14:19
1. Some states have different laws that apply to people with specific medical training. All of those are modifications of the general common law rule, taught in every law school first year torts class to every law student in America, that there is no duty to rescue in most circumstances but that you have a duty to use reasonable care if you DO undertake to rescue. This is basic black letter law. If you operated under different rules, as a medical provider, in specific states, then you are the exception. Not the rule.
I'm held to a higher level of standard of care, if I provide assistance, but the rules are almost the same. As long as I do not have a duty to treat (which as far as I know for sure, only Vermont mandates, but I've also heard of WI) I can not be sued for malpractice should there be an adverse outcome. So as a physcian, I'm protected from malpractise lawsuits, but this also extends in most states to liability as well. as long as I stay within my usual training. as an internist, I'm not going to be doing open heart massage. however, there is a concept in most states of imminent peril. So while I' don't routinely perform crics, I do have some training and if that's a situation which will result in certain death, I'll perform one if need be.
2. Given your training, you presumably would not be so boneheaded as to move a potential spinal injury without proper equipment and help.
The whole spinal cord protection maneuvers we use are largely dogma and never been fully studied in proper trials. There have been some indirect examinations by comparing other countries without EMS in their rates of spinal cord complications and some quasi-second world ERs seems to have slightly better outcomes than the US, which even having equivalent outcomes is shocking to many given the dogma surrounding this training.
3. The person who did the moving here claims that she was afraid it was going to catch fire. Whether she had any objective basis for that (i.e., smelled gas, actual fire started, etc.) is why this case is going back down for a trial where they can drill down into all of those details.
If she had reason to fear a fire, then she had reason to attempt a rescue and she should not be liable for any injury. And the imminent peril doctrine should apply. That is as long as the state allows for good Samaritan protections for lay people.
when i worked on the boats on Maui I rescued a lady that went under (near drowning) revived and got her going again :)
got her on oxygen and she wanted to sue me for embarrassing her ;) in front of her peers ??????
every person on the boat came up to me to tell me they would back me that I saved her life and she should be grateful
wack jobs are wack jobs
I am sick of this SUE mentality
I do wonder since I have a rescue background etc.. I dont want to help cause of BS like this
we used to do a a few rescues a month at least with near drowning or other accidents
only a few deaths lucky for us they are not as common but usually people are forever grateful
OK the wacked side of me says !!! :
her friend should turn around and sue her for mental damages for being in the wreck :) then sue the car manufacture and the road crew and the cell phone company since she was prob yacking or texting and then BUSH cause everything is his fault !!!
but when Obama gets in she will walk again cause he will cure everyone !!!
Alpha Sierra
12-25-08, 16:11
While I know what I need to do in an emergency, including CPR, I have let all my certs laps and no longer serve as a first responder at work.
Don't want, nor need, any liability for helping anyone.
We all have a time to die, anyway.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.