To Rescue, or not to Rescue - that is the question.

[bfw]

I'll risk it and hope that if I'm ever in touble, so will someone else.

Better yet, do it Lone Ranger style. Keep your mask on, and disappear as soon as you can without endangering the victim. Leaving a silver bullet is optional.

"And we didn't even get a chance to thank him"

 

[BekaLynn]

How could the Governator let this happen?

 

[Sas]

I'll risk it and hope that if I'm ever in touble, so will someone else.

Me too. I would rather face the legal consequences of a rescue than my conscience if I refused to carry out a rescue within my abilities.

 

[BWDscott]

This case came from a situation where there was a car accident and a lady pulled another person out of the car because she was afraid it was going to catch on fire and explode. While being pulled out of the car (or maybe in the accident itself....it's not clear exactly how it happened), the person was paralyzed.

Maybe the real crime here was purpitrated by Hollywood, in the way television and movies have people believing the cars all explode when they are in a crash, when, in realty, exploding, even flaming cars are EXTREMELY rare. Some car crash witnesses see "smoke" eminating from the vehicle, which is actually the powder released by the airbags upon deployment, or steam from a ruptured radiator. Many times I have responded to scenes that were reported to be mv crashes with a vehicle on fire, only to find a steaming radiator, or front seat driver/passenger covered in the airbag powder (nasty tasting stuff).

But, seriously...

The unfortunate set of circumstances I see in this "brief" study of the case is that you cannot render aid to a person that refuses that aid. Unless that person is incapacitated and consent is implied, you are screwed if you touch that person. A charge of "battery" would not be beyond the scope of the laws in most states.

This is very serious and is something we deal with on the streets, every day. When we respond to reports of a "man down" or similar, we must keep in mind wether or not the patient has the mental capacity to refuse our care. If for some reason the persons judgement is impaired due to a medical, psychological, or pharmacalogical (drugs/alcohol) reason, or if they are unconscious, our responsibility to treat is implied because the law assumes a normal (unimpaired/conscious) person would want treatment. If the patient is fully aware of thier surroundings, situation and/or circumstances, we can allow him/her to refuse treatment. If we were to force our treatment on that unimpaired person, against thier will, it could be considered battery in Florida.

The good samaritan laws protect the person who acts in "good faith". Unfortunately, when you do harm to another person, who is refusing your aid, you are no longer acting in "good faith".

So remember... OFFER your help. If it is refused, stay close and comfort them until professionals arrive... or... they go unconscious.

 

[la_diver]

Good Samaritain Law--- Federal Law----Obama!!!

 

[Sas]

Good Samaritain Law--- Federal Law----Obama!!!

 

[NudeDiver]

The problem here is that once the smoke has cleared, the victim is stuck with whatever fate bestowed upon her, and has had a chance to consult with a lawyer - she could say ANYTHING!! Who is to say that a person doesn't scream "get me out, get me out" at the scene - and later, after learning she is paralyzed, and on the advice her of lawyer, claims, "I told them to leave me alone and wait for EMS, but they wouldn't listen - it's their fault I can't walk."

Money talks, bull**** walks. Most people are going to go for the money whenever they have the chance.

 

[John_B]

Nudeguy, there were plenty of witnesses at the scene of this accident. Read the case and the ruling. Google is your friend.

Stop defending what was patently indefensible.

 

[llqwyd]

be that as it may, some of us would rather chance the lawsuits and second guessing from others than having to second guess ourselves...

 

[Peter Guy]

As someone else wrote, please don't let the facts stand in the way of blaming California and the attorneys.

If you REALLY want to know what happened, read the case -- most of you should be able to comprehend the simple language used by the Court. After all, it was meant to be read and understood by the California Legislature.

It really is a simple case -- Did the California Legislature, when it passed its "Good Samaritan Law," give blanket immunity to everyone who came to the rescue of an injured party? The Court, relying on the language of the act (what a novel idea), said, "No, the Legislature did NOT intend to give blanket immunity to everyone who came to the rescue of an injured party, just those who provided medical aid." Given the language of the act, my opinion is that the Court properly interpreted what the Legislature wrote. (BTW, the California law seems to be more lenient than our own Washington statute -- something I didn't know until reading this case.)

Does this have any application to rescuing a diver? Not a whole lot. IF you are a "buddy" you still probably have some obligation to attempt a rescue. If you are NOT a buddy and you attempt a rescue, you are in the same position legally that you were before this case was decided -- don't be negligent!