Rendering Assistance - Good Samaritan Laws

[Mike Boswell]

Hi ItsBruce,

Thanks for a very cogent summary of the issues. I have two questions:

1. What is your question?
2. Can a person defend themselves (i.e. without hiring a lawyer)?

 

[fdog]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just making the observation that a well worded complaint will get the plaintiff "on base" and that the good samaritan may find himself an involuntary participant in a lawsuit. It could be expensive to defend and will certainly be an inconvenience. A defendant is required to answer written questions, called "interrogatories" fully and completely under oath and the questions can be about anything so long as they are "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Thus, they could be very intrusive. A defendant is also required to answer questions in a deposition and that could last several days and can also be very intrusive.

If anything, the legislature should have provided a quick, efficient mechanism for determining if there is even a basis for a claim of "gross negligence" with fees awarded to a defendant who shows there isn't. Otherwise a prudent person might just pass on rendering assistance.

Sadly, this is becoming true - in the words of one of the folks I work with:



"If you're not family or a close friend, you're gonna die."



BTW, thanks Bruce, for the succinct description of our legal (un)protections....!


All the best, Jamees

 

[Mike Boswell]

If you don't help someone because of fear about being sued, that's your choice. Chances are, you are not the type that has much to offer anyway.

 

[theduckguru]

If we went to a system were "LOSER" pays legal fees, it would cut out on alot of silly lawsuits.

Probably not, the likely outcome would be lower out of court settlements, which would punish those with legit suits.

 

[DaleC]

I would not dive with anyone too cowardly to offer aid in an emergency for fear of a lawsuit.

 

[Dyno Bill]

The legal system is one that exists on the backs of people that actually work for a living. I have only needed an attorney to protect myself from another attorney. They use words carefully set in place by their piers many times to abuse those that arn't professional word butchers. I refuse to live in fear by others using a system they created to elevate them selfs above otherwise normal working men and women. If a man comes to my door with threat or malice in his heart I don't call 911 as a first move, I grab the brothers Smith and Wesson. If I see someone in need or in danger of harm I will assist every time the same way I would expect someone to act if it were my family in need of assistance.

 

[Doc Harry]

Yes, I read the OP.

Lawyers will always claim "gross negligence" even if there was no negligence so that they can get their case to trial and try to extort money from someone with deep pockets.

So, you didn't read the OP?

ItsBruce took some time to offer a good explanation of how the legal system works, and asked specifically that these types of comments be withheld.

I'll add to the OP.

Don't know if this is true in California, but in some (most?) jurisdictions, your burden of proof for gross negligence or recklessness (willful or wanton misconduct) is by clear and convincing evidence.

The clear and convincing standard requires more proof than a preponderance (more likely than not), the standard for most civil cases.

 

[ItsBruce]

Hi ItsBruce,

Thanks for a very cogent summary of the issues. I have two questions:

1. What is your question?
2. Can a person defend themselves (i.e. without hiring a lawyer)?

1. I have no question. I just have a grievance with the California Legislature and its failure to provide proper protection to good Samaritans.

2. A person has the legal right to defend themselves in a lawsuit. However, it is rarely a good idea to do so. For better or worse, our legal system is expected to ferret out the truth by using the adversary process, i.e. two opposing sides present their evidence to a jury and attack their opponent's evidence through vigorous cross-examination, and the jury will find the truth. For better or worse, to try to make this work, there are lots of technical rules. Just as many aspects of diving requires special training and knowledge, dealing with the rules of a lawsuit and being able to effectively present favorable evidence and challenge unfavorable evidence, requires special training and knowledge. Just as I would not dive a cave without proper prior instruction, training and certification, I would not try to defend a lawsuit without proper prior instruction, training and certification.