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

[Miller64]

At least an "8"?

 

[Saltwater Junky]

Was the injured party conscious while being pulled from the car?

 

[ligersandtions]

I don't recall if she was conscious at the time or not....I think the article didn't really say. I skimmed through quickly and didn't see anything (but I didn't read it thoroughly this time like I did when I first read it). The article is below:

California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care
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.
By Carol J. Williams
December 19, 2008
Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.

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.

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.

But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.

In 1980, the Legislature enacted the Health and Safety Code, which provides that "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."

Although that passage does not use the word "medical" in describing the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there, lawmakers intended to shield "only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.

The high court cited no previous cases involving good Samaritan actions deemed unprotected by the state code, suggesting the challenge of Torti's rescue effort was the first to narrow the scope of the law.

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."

Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was "illogical" because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving 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 for the dissenters. "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."

Both opinions have merit, "but I think the majority has better arguments," said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and bioethics law at USC.

Shapiro said the majority was correct in interpreting that the Legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with "reasonable care," as the law requires.

Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court's message was that emergency care "should be left to medical professionals."

Torti's liability has yet to be determined in court, and if the Legislature is unhappy with any judgment arising from the immunity denial, it can revise the code, he concluded.

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."

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

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.

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. It was her ambition to become a Hollywood makeup artist -- a dream no longer achievable, the lawyer said.

Torti's trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year.

 

[mksmith713]

Apples & oranges......
If you're a qualified healthcare professional and you help, you're covered.
The key word is qualified.
Not any old Good Samaritan qualifies.
Same with divers in distress.
If you're a certified Rescue diver, you should be good to go.

Wiki: Good Samaritan Law
I haven't looked myself but I'm sure it'll prove to be enlightening reading.

 

[mongodives]

Really does make you think doesn't it?
Every organization out there that teaches First aid and CPR in the US preach that good samaritan laws will protect you if you act in good faith and within your training. This lady appears to me to have acted in good faith.

What do you call 1000 Lawyers on the bottom of the Ocean? A good start.

Next they'll try and convict service members for killing people in a war, oh I forgot they already do that.

 

[John_B]

I hate to let facts get in the way of everyone's righteous indignation...

If you take the time to read the case and the ruling, what it actually says is that gross negligence (and by that I mean off the charts) during an unnecessary "rescue" isn't shielded. You can't, of your own volition, "rescue" someone who doesn't want you to rescue them, manhandle them like a tackling dummy, paralyze them in the process, and then expect to be shielded by Good Samaritan laws. The plaintiff seems to invented an imminent danger that didn't exist.

Was the injured party conscious while being pulled from the car?

A more interesting question, "What was the BAC of the plaintiff?"

 

[cgvmer]

Here is an extract from NJ law: P.L.1963, c.140 (C.2A:62A-1 et seq.).
Under common law, while a person is under no obligation to
27 provide emergency assistance at the scene of an accident, a person
28 who chooses to do so may be held civilly liable if he or she is found to
29 have acted in a negligent manner. To encourage individuals to render
30 assistance at accident scenes, New Jersey and many other states have
31 adopted "Good Samaritan" acts to provide civil immunity for
32 individuals who in good faith render emergency care at the scene of an
33 accident or in an emergency.

34 In its present form, New Jersey's "Good Samaritan Act" provides
35 immunity to (1) any individual, including health care professionals; (2)
36 the members of volunteer first aid, rescue and ambulance squads and
37 (3) municipal, county and State law enforcement officers, who in good
38 faith render emergency care at the scene of an accident or in an
39 emergency or who, in the case of volunteer members of first aid,
40 rescue and ambulance squads, transport the victims of an accident or
41 emergency to a hospital or other facility for treatment.

In NJ it covers any indiviual and also covers "emergency Care" which should include extraction...but it doesn't exclude negligence, which was probably argued in this case if the victim told them not to move her and they did anyway.

 

[Miller64]

I'v seen a person doing CPR on another person that had a pulse.Main thing is common sense,dont make the situation worse.If there is no life threatening situation,and a person hurt ,ie,MVA,fall,that may have a neck/back injury,dont yank them up and run out and say you helped.Even I,while on duty can be sued if I move a person and cause them to be paralized or cause further harm and they were not in a life threatening situation ,the city I work for will not help me.Common sense.I let my EMT-P expire,didnt want it anymore.I know it,but I cant use it.I can start an IV,,but I wont,I know how to shock,but wont.I can package and know how to move with a possible cervical injury and can look around and see if it's life or death,move or dont.I also know a guy that became a Fire Dept Paramedic so he would know procedures,then went to law school so he could sue paramedics..I they arent gonna die where they are....weight the outcome on your part before you act.....

 

[mongodives]

CGVMER post has all through it "good faith". Tto go back into court to say someones "good faith" was negligent is what should make everyone take pause and think about those "what if.." moments in life.

By no means am I implying that we shouldn't render assistance, just that we need to think about what we might do if we come across a car accident, drowning victim, diver in distress before we come across it. A little pre-emptive thought just might be all we need to CYA.

 

[jswantek]

Situations like this have been long debated around our firehouse. We've picked things apart, analyzed them, played 'devil's advocate', you name it, and we always end up coming to the same conclusion. If an incident arises, and you are trained to respond to said incident, do only what you are certified to do, nothing beyond your training. In a situation where you are on your own and come across something such as a vehicle accident, something as simple as calling 911 and making sure that noone attempts to interfere with the incident scene, you have provided adequate care without putting yourself at risk. Let's face it, someone may be trained to the hilt in vehicle rescue, traumal life support, etc; but unless your car doubles as an ALS unit with rescue tools in the truck, there's not much you can (properly) do.

As far as diving is concerned, something as simple as alerting a diver's dive buddy or the divemaster could be considered rendering assistance while not going beyond your certification. After all, isn't this why we dive with a buddy, a buddy that we know and trust? So, if you see a diver having trouble, I would think step one would be to see where said diver's buddy is. After that, if they are unseen for some reason, only do what you are trained to do. If you are a certified rescue diver and can render assistance, then feel free to do so. However, if you do not have the credentials, you are risking that diver's life as well as your own should you do something improper.

One other thing that we've learned through our legal counsel at the firehouse. If you are rendering aid, within the limits of your certification, proving negligence will be very difficult for a prosecuter or attorney to prove. I'm not an attorney myself, so I did take her word on that.

If anything, as divers, we should learn two simple things to keep in mind. Make sure you take a rescue diver class and always dive with a buddy you can trust.

...just my thoughts...