[Jamo]

OK...so here it is. If you read the various opinions (majority and minority) as well as the text of the law in question, as well as the more detailed lower court's decision, you'll soon realize that this isn't so much of an attack on the concept of the Good Samaritan Law as it is on the specific drafting of the specific piece of legislation. It's in the wrong Code (more suited to the Civil Code for general application than the Health and Safety Code), which is what gave rise to the argument that it has limited application to emergency medical care being provided as opposed to actions taken in an emergency. As the justices noted...the legislature needs to fix it if the concept to provide limited immunity for the general population is to be provided and preserved.

Many states, in fact, do not even have such a statute.

Further, this in no way undermines the concept under common law, and the jury is free to apply those same standards in a civil case as they have been applied for hundreds of years.

All this decision says is that the statute, as written, does not provide a basis for throwing the suit out pre-trial.

So...typical media misdirecting the decision in order to gain headlines, and folks jumping to conclusions based on their own self-serving bias.

Yes, every now and then a lawyer finds a phukup in the law...which is how laws get fixed.