CA Supreme Court; Good Samaritans Can Be Sued For Nonmedical Care

[Chesslike]

Again, no good deed goes unpunished. What were the majority justices thinking? Encouraging our sue-happy society with rulings such as these is detrimental to us all.


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
8:35 PM PST, December 18, 2008

In a decision that could give pause to would-be good Samaritans, 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.

Lisa Torti of Northridge now faces trial for allegedly contributing to the injuries suffered by fellow department store cosmetician Alexandra Van Horn, who was rendered a paraplegic in the car crash on Topanga Canyon Road that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.

The high court's narrow definition of who qualifies for immunity when coming to the aid of an accident victim drew criticism within its own ranks, with three of the seven justices deeming the ruling "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.

Writing for the majority in the 4-3 ruling, Justice Carlos R. Moreno said the court's primary duty was to determine the Legislature's intent in immunizing from prosecution certain persons whose good Samaritan acts aggravate or inflict injury.

"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," the state's 1980 Health and Safety Code reads.

Because the relevant section is within the code's emergency medical services division, lawmakers probably intended it "to immunize from liability for civil damages only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Moreno wrote.

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."

In a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the minority deemed "illogical" recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical 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. "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."

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."

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.

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

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. Trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year, the lawyer said.

carol.williams@latimes.com

[thehallmarks]

Jan 6, 5:14 PM EST

Calif. bill would reverse Good Samaritan ruling 
 
SACRAMENTO (AP) -- A state senator drew on his own law enforcement experience in proposing legislation Tuesday responding to a California Supreme Court ruling that leaves some Good Samaritans vulnerable to lawsuits.

The court ruled last month that state law protects people from liability only if they are administering emergency medical care. The justices said a woman who left her friend a paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car in 2004 can be sued for negligence.

The bill by Republican state Sen. John Benoit of Riverside would amend the law. His bill would shield Good Samaritans from liability for providing any form of emergency care, not just medical care.

"It's going to cost lives," Benoit said of the high court's decision.

He said the court's ruling sends the wrong message to people who want to help others who are injured or in danger.

Benoit recalled coming upon people helping accident victims numerous times during his 31 years in the California Highway Patrol and as a police officer in Corona.

"It's one of the places where you see human kindness come out. A lot of people will drive on by, but a few would stop," Benoit said. "It happens a lot, and I'd hate to see anything that would dissuade people from doing that."
 

[RobertW]

From what I understand, if the "rescuer" had tried to administer first aid to the victim after removing her from the car, she would have been protected and the victim would not be allowed to sue.

Since the "rescuer" just pulled her out of the car and left her on the ground, not attempting to help her further, the Court decided that the lawsuit could proceed.

Stay tuned!  Next month the Court may decide that all of us are responsible for the victim's injury and can be sued because we weren't there to help her.   

This is another example of why being a Lawyer is becoming synonymous with a host of other low-life seedy proffessions.

[Wrightwood]

Editorial LA Times  March 4, 2009

Coming to the aid of good Samaritans A proposed law would give legal cover to passersby who help out in an emergency.

Coming to the rescue of so-called good Samaritans, new state legislation would give much-needed legal protection to passersby who help in an emergency.

In the final days of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled against a woman, Lisa Torti, who pulled a co-worker from a car after an accident. The injured woman, Alexandra Van Horn, was left a paraplegic and claimed that Torti's actions were to blame. Torti countered that she was covered by the state's good-Samaritan law, which shields from liability anyone "who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency."

The court's majority responded with a puzzling reading of the state and concluded that the law covers only medical care, not rescue. An amateur do-gooder could, for example, be found liable for accidentally breaking a man's leg while pulling him from a burning building, but not for botching the job of treating the broken limb. The situation clearly calls for legislative intervention, and Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) provides it with AB 83. The bill would extend good-Samaritan protection to rescuers, though not in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. It also would slightly weaken existing protections for medical aid by applying the same exceptions.

Had this law been in place at the time, Torti's actions might still have been subject to liability. Pulling Van Horn from the vehicle may have been a terrible mistake. Emergency protocol is to avoid moving accident victims-- in order to prevent spinal damage -- unless there is imminent danger from, say, a car fire. (Torti said she feared the car would explode.) Considering that both women reportedly had been out partying beforehand, issues of impaired judgment might be raised as well. But the standard for a finding of gross negligence is high enough -- the action must violate accepted ideas of reasonable behavior -- that most errors by a well-meaning person would be protected. That's important, because amateurs do make mistakes, sometimes stupid or harmful mistakes, and yet most of the time their well-intentioned intervention is helpful.

A majority of states have "good Sam" laws that exempt gross negligence or misconduct from protection, but there aren't enough statistics to know whether such wording has discouraged any would-be helpers. Luckily for our society, most people act on the instinct to help without worrying about the fine points of the law. The main issue is that after the Supreme Court ruling, Californians were left with a loud message that their heroism might backfire. Feuer's legislation would send a new message: that random acts of kindness are encouraged and protected.

[BikingBrian]

Torti said she feared the car would explode.

Maybe she should have sued Hollywood, as burning cars only explode in the movies.

[Bildonator]

From what I understand, if the "rescuer" had tried to administer first aid to the victim after removing her from the car, she would have been protected and the victim would not be allowed to sue.

Since the "rescuer" just pulled her out of the car and left her on the ground, not attempting to help her further, the Court decided that the lawsuit could proceed.

No, even if she had rendered aid, she still could be sued over this crazy ruling by the Supreme court.   Pulling the victim out of the vehicle exposed her to liability.  She would be covered by the good samaritan law for treating her.  Discouraging those who would try and help someone. Crazy!

[kew]

One aspect of this case that the courts seem to disregard is the time element of such an incident.

When you find yourself in such a situation you make split second decisions to either turn and run, stand and watch, or get in involved. As to which you do is based on instinct. If you chose to get involved and help, hopefully, you have some training, CERT for example, that will kick in to help you know what to do. If you don't have training but chose to get involved anyway, you are still making split second decisions that are, right or wrong, done with your best of intentions.

If you find someone lying at the bottom of a swimming pool, your instinct, based on a split second decision, is to dive in and pull him/her out of the water, but you don't know CPR. In that situation should you be exposed to a law suit because the victim's brain was starve of oxygen for too long a time and now will spend the rest of their life in a coma.

In my mind the two situations are very much the same. Each case had a rescuer with good intentions that didn't know how to treat the injury.

An accident scene that I came upon had two victims, both classified "Immediate" and were airlifted out. As a CERT member, I was first responder. It was a good 10 minutes before the first Paramedic unit arrived. When I arrived on scene there were probably 30 - 40 people just stand around watching. None of them wanted to get involved. I can only assume they had stopped to see how much blood they could see and, if they were lucky, maybe they could watch someone die. In my opinion, these are the people that should be taken to task for their actions, or lack thereof.

Also, as the choppers (two of them) were arriving, I assisted the CHP in closing a section of hwy so they could land. I found it amazing how many people were yelling at me and the CHP officer I was with, because we were INTERRUPTING their plan. They were delayed about 20 minutes. but had no compassion for the victims who were very near death.