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

[Sas]

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

I dunno, I would not sue someone who had tried to help me in good faith, even if they borked it up. And if I happened to screw up a rescue I would do my best to assist the person I'd messed up afterwards.

I have asked my family and partner not to sue anyone if I am injured or killed. If it is gross negligence then there will be criminal charges. Don't see the need for civil action. Adding financial ruin to someone who was most likely trying to help me, or who might have made a mistake is completely unnecessary.

 

[AzAtty]

Torti was a hard case for appellate review. No matter how the court ruled, an undesirable result was guaranteed. As the saying goes, "hard cases make bad law." That is certainly evident in Torti.

I agree with the dissenting justice's opinion filed in the case. The dissent did not believe that the rescuer had established that an "emergency" existed, and would have declined to extend immunity to the rescuer under the statute. However, the dissent believed that "emergency care" shielded under the statute should include both rescue efforts and basic life support (CPR and first aid). The majority, on the other hand, essentially rewrote the statute and concluded that "emergency care" really meant "emergency medical care," and that removing the victim from the vehicle was not "emergency medical care."

Take the time to read the Court of Appeals decision which the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court case does not recite the facts in sufficient detail to get a picture of what apparently happened.

As I recall the Court of Appeals' statement of the facts, both the "victim" and "rescuer" had been smoking marijuana and consuming significant quantities of alcohol shortly before the accident. Most probably, the rescuer and victim were quite intoxicated at the time of the rescue. The rescuer claimed that liquid was pouring from the car, there was smoke, and the car was about to blow up. Other witnesses saw no liquid pouring from the car, saw no smoke, and did not perceive any imminent explosion. By some accounts, the rescuer dragged the victim like a rag doll from the car and left the victim beside the vehicle that was purportedly in danger of exploding.

I recall opining that the Court of Appeals did not like the idea that a doped up rescuer should get off lightly, and tortured the statute so that the rescuer would not escape liability. In so doing, the Court of Appeals created real question about what constitutes "emergency medical care." Under the Court of Appeals decision (and now the Supreme Court opinion) it is conceivable that removing some from a crashed vehicle does not qualify as "emergency medical care"; rather, only administering CPR or first aid qualifies as "emergency medical care."

The Supreme Court opinion has merely clouded the important issue of whether rescue efforts are part of "emergency care" protected by the statute. We know for certain that providing CPR and first aid is protected, but removing someone from a car is apparently not protected. The opinion is silent on the question of whether a rescue necessary to provide emergency medical care is part of the "emergency medical care." I certainly hope it is; otherwise the absurd circumstances suggested by the dissent will occur.

EDIT:

Although PeterGuy and I usually fall into the same camp on the legal issues, I believe the case may affect diving rescue liability in California in the short term. The open question is whether a rescue (e.g. bringing someone up from underwater so that CPR and first aid may be delivered) is shielded by the current law. Torti seems to exclude the rescue portion of the event. One of two developments (or both) will occur. First, in the next case with similar facts, the defense will argue that "emergency medical care" includes a rescue/removal so that a rescuer may provide CPR and/or first aid. Second, the legislature could simply amend the statute to clarify its application. In the long run, we'll have some clarification, but short term it's murky.

 

[Coldwater_Canuck]

Lawsuits for helping I'm sure are few and far between. If I could save someone, I'd risk it. However, i don't know the specifics of this case to know if it's nuts or if the "rescuers" were acting highly irresponsibly.

 

[NudeDiver]

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

Try to pay attention. I was talking about a generic example (i.e. "someone") - not the example in the OP.

Stop defending what was patently indefensible.

You can rest assured that should I come upon such an incident, I will not risk trying to help out, other than calling 9-1-1, should a payphone be available in the immediate area.

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!

Or, perhaps more prudently, avoid involvement if at all possible - least your attempt to help be construed as "negligent" at some point in the future.


Mr. Brown: is it true you found Mr. Wilson unconscious, on the bottom, at 100' depth.

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that you ascertained Mr. Wilson was in need of rescue?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that you are a trained and certified PADI Rescue Diver?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that as part of your Rescue Diver training, you were instructed in the techniques involved in bringing an unconscious diver to the surface safely?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that you inflated Mr. Wilson's BC too much, and as a result, he ascended to the surface too quickly?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true...but I was just trying to help.

Mr. Brown: I submit to the court the results of Mr. Wilson's autopsy, indicating that he died of an embolism, not drowning. Experts have already testified that such embolisms are caused by rapid ascents from depth to the surface.

I assert it was Mr. Chump's action of bringing Mr. Wilson to the surface that was the proximate cause of death, the embolism, not the fact of Mr. Wilson's being unconscious on the bottom. Had Mr. Chump NOT initiated his rescue attempt, or had he brought Mr. Wilson to the surface at a safe ascent rate, Mr. Brown would have never suffered from the embolism that was his cause of death.

Please note that while the Good Samaritan law covers emergency medical care, Mr. Chump did not kill poor Mr. Wilson with faulty medical care, which would be covered by the statue, but through poor rescue diving techniques. Bringing someone from depth to the surface is not medical care, and thus is not covered by the statute. While Mr. Chump did perform CPR on Mr. Wilson after getting him to shore, poor Mr. Wilson was already dead - as a result of the non-medical rescue that Mr. Chump provided.

Clearly, Mr. Chump's rescue activity was negligent. Mr. Chump was trained and knew about the safe ascent limit, and as a rescue diver, Mr. Chump was trained in how to properly perform a rescue of a diver at depth. It's clear that despite this training, Mr. Chump acted in a negligent fashion. He claims he was "just trying to help" but as we have shown, his "help" was faulty and negligent, and now HE MUST PAY for his evil deeds!! We're asking for $10M in damages, and we also demand Mr. Chump's right testicle as compensation.

No thanks.

 

[John_B]

And as both Az and Peter said, this is an interpretation of a law that by any account seems to have been imprecisely worded.

Rest assured that the CA legislature in Sacradementia is free to rewrite the law to exempt stoned and drunk partiers from liability when [-]paralyzing[/-] rescuing their friends from nonexistent hazards "like a rag doll" after a car accident.

John_B (n.b. former CA resident)

 

[NudeDiver]

And as both Az and Peter said, this is an interpretation of a law that by any account seems to have been imprecisely worded.Rest assured that the CA legislature in Sacradementia is free to rewrite the law to exempt stoned and drunk partiers from liability when [-]paralyzing[/-] rescuing their friends from nonexistent hazards "like a rag doll" after a car accident.

In the meantime - if you find people in distress, the safest course of action for a third party is to avoid involvement to the greatest extent possible.

 

[DiverBizz]

Mr. Brown: is it true you found Mr. Wilson unconscious, on the bottom, at 100' depth.

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that you ascertained Mr. Wilson was in need of rescue?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that you are a trained and certified PADI Rescue Diver?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that as part of your Rescue Diver training, you were instructed in the techniques involved in bringing an unconscious diver to the surface safely?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true.

Mr. Brown: is it true that you inflated Mr. Wilson's BC too much, and as a result, he ascended to the surface too quickly?

Mr. Chump: yes, it's true...but I was just trying to help.

Mr. Brown: I submit to the court the results of Mr. Wilson's autopsy, indicating that he died of an embolism, not drowning. Experts have already testified that such embolisms are caused by rapid ascents from depth to the surface.

I assert it was Mr. Chump's action of bringing Mr. Wilson to the surface that was the proximate cause of death, the embolism, not the fact of Mr. Wilson's being unconscious on the bottom. Had Mr. Chump NOT initiated his rescue attempt, or had he brought Mr. Wilson to the surface at a safe ascent rate, Mr. Brown would have never suffered from the embolism that was his cause of death.

Please note that while the Good Samaritan law covers emergency medical care, Mr. Chump did not kill poor Mr. Wilson with faulty medical care, which would be covered by the statue, but through poor rescue diving techniques. Bringing someone from depth to the surface is not medical care, and thus is not covered by the statute. While Mr. Chump did perform CPR on Mr. Wilson after getting him to shore, poor Mr. Wilson was already dead - as a result of the non-medical rescue that Mr. Chump provided.

Clearly, Mr. Chump's rescue activity was negligent. Mr. Chump was trained and knew about the safe ascent limit, and as a rescue diver, Mr. Chump was trained in how to properly perform a rescue of a diver at depth. It's clear that despite this training, Mr. Chump acted in a negligent fashion. He claims he was "just trying to help" but as we have shown, his "help" was faulty and negligent, and now HE MUST PAY for his evil deeds!! We're asking for $10M in damages, and we also demand Mr. Chump's right testicle as compensation.

OUCH!!!! I am so sorry Mr. Chump.

I simply would not/could not leave a human being on the bottom at 100ft., hello lawsuit.

 

[Miller64]

I would hope,that anyone with a heart and soul,would help.Bottom line,,if you wont help me or my family,friends,if you could pass by and look the other way,afraid to help,I pray to my God,you are somewhere else and someone else is there to help.I feel we are all in this together.Yes ,there are people that would love a lawsuit,but I beleive the vast majority would thank you for the help.As I believe the vast majority on SB will help on whatever is needed and the rest that want to be hardbutts ,naysayers ,ect ,,,well,,,what ever,can,,,,kiss this

 

[NudeDiver]

Yes ,there are people that would love a lawsuit,but I beleive the vast majority would thank you for the help.

Just look at the lady in the OP. "Negligence" or not - the lady was trying to help, and she was her FRIEND and still got sued.

Money does strange things to people.

 

[mongodives]

Nudediver, nail on head it's all about money.

Twist to your scenerio MR. Chump tried to help

What if he didn't and the lawyer finds out he Mr Chump saw the victim at depth and did nothing? The Lawyer will be on him like white on rice for letting a diver die and not trying to bring them to the surface. CATCH 22