http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection_1 LOS ANGELES – Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued. California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify. Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid. "If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote. Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck. Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit. Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis. Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled. Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling. Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.
Just because the suit can go forward does not mean that she will have liability. It sounds like they are applying the standard of "due care." If she is found to have exercised that care that a reasonable person would have under the circumstances, then she will be ok. That being said, it is pretty common knowledge that you do not move an injured person without stabilizing the neck. I wonder why she thought that the car was going to explode. That, I assume, will come out at trial. All of that being said...this court decision flat sucks.
No where in the article did it say that the car was on fire. Maybe the article just didn't mention a possible fire, but just going by the article there's no evidence of one. This isn't the movies; cars are not a bunch of ticking time bombs. If there was no fire, and the car didn't end up exploding, then this "Good Samaritan" acted out of ignorance. She was also ignorant in moving her friend in a way that paralyzed her. I think a case for her not exercising due care can be made.
^ You should e-mail this to the lady who busted her ass saving the other lady. Maybe she'll keep this in mind next time she wants to go playing hero
You're right. Good samaritan is ok, but DUMB good samaritan is not ok. With friend like that, who needs enemies?
How can you tell if you are a good samaritan or a dumb good samaritan? In this case that lady have to make a snap decision to save her friend's life, that is how i see it. How about another example: you are walking down the street and u see a child standing in the middle of the road and is unaware of speeding car coming at him from behind. You run to the kid and push him out of the way of the speeding car but you break the kid's leg in the process and is sued by his mother. The kid's mother argued that how the hell did u know that the speeding car wont stop in time or swing in another direction away from the kid? Were you a good samaritan or a "dumb" good samaritan?
You don't understand how the law works. Just because you can sue someone doesn't mean you are going to win. You still have to go in front of a jury and prove that you didn't meet the applicable duty of care. There is no jury in the entire world that is going to find liability in this situation.
It would depend on how far away the car was, how fast it was going and whether you had reasonable time to exercise caution. Not every situation is an emergency and requires "snap" judgment. The key question is would a reasonable person in the exact same situation act the same way? The injured friend is claiming that it wasn't an emergency situation (ie, maybe it wasn't reasonable to assume the car was going to explode). The Samaritan says it was an emergency, thought car was going to explode, had to make snap decision. The CA supreme court says it's ok to allow a jury to decide what is reasonable or dumb given the circumstances. If they determine that she was dumb, it won't matter whether she was actually aware of her own stupidity.
All I know is that if somebody pulled me from a wreck when there was no logical reason to do so and that their action, and not the wreck, caused me to be paralyzed, then I would be super pissed and would want them to pay for their incompetence. The questions are 1)was the woman actually paralyzed from the wreck or from the rescue and 2)did the rescuer have a legitimate reason to believe the woman needed to be rescued or was she just being a r****d. Just thinking that the car is going to explode is not a good reason. I can't go shoot a random guy on the street and claim self defense if I think the guy has a gun but he in no way gave a valid reason to think that he did. Stupidity is no excuse.
Yep, the undertaking rule. Restatement 2d section 324 (1965) S324: The undertaking duty If you take charge of a person to aid them and you 1) fail to exercise reasonable care while that person is still in your charge or 2) discontinue, leaving that person in a worse position, you’re liable
Yep. The undertaking rule establishes the duty of exercising reasonable care. Whether you exercised reasonable care is a question to the jury. For the lady helper here first thing is to get the case to a trial.
It's not only that, also the question whether the helper deprive the victim of a chance of being rescued better. So before you can help, you should think twice about your ability to help.
Oops, I meant to say for the lady helps it to get the case dismissed before the trail. For the plaintiff defendant is to get the case to the trial.
Ahh, no! Hate be an azz here, but just don't want to this be replicated to people who may read it. What you are referring to is not the good sam rule, because the good sam rule says S314: The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action. There is no exception to that, whether a split second or not. Assuming there is no special relationship between the lady helper and the victim or the lady help didn't create the accident. The CA court is letting the jury decide under the undertaking rule S324: The undertaking duty If you take charge of a person to aid them and you 1) fail to exercise reasonable care while that person is still in your charge or 2) discontinue, leaving that person in a worse position, you’re liable
