Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
I think the legisture knew exacly what they were drafting. If they passed a law simply providing immunity to any bystander that provides voluntary assistance in any emergency situation, then that would/should eliminate the possibilty of getting that pot of gold at the end of a lawsuit. They knew what they were doing. Most laws are designed this way. Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamo
--- California (and a few other states) have actually looked into passing legislation requiring folks to take action in emergencies, but as you might imagine, requiring affirmative actions rather than prohibiting actions is a tough sell.
Personally, I think Justice Baxter (an old friend, by the way...former Fresno attorney, appellate judge and Dukemajian's appointments secretary) had it right in his opinion wherein he dissented with the majority in limiting the statute's protection to medical care, but concurred in ruling that the summary judgement was unfounded based on the facts in this case given the intoxication and the lack of any other witness indicating there was smoke/fluids coming from the car to indicate there was indeed an "emergency." As with any immunity statute, exceptions can always be drawn from the facts to insure it is not used in the wrong way...Baxter said there was a question of whether the defendant's actions...based on the facts taken as true in a summary judgement motion (as they must be)...should be afforded the immunity protections.
That being said...the statute should be in the Civil Code to make it clear it is of general application, rather than the Health and Safety Code which implies (at least enough for the majority) that is applies to emergency medical care only.
|
Here's another opinion.
http://firstaid.about.com/od/medical...o_good_sam.htm
I love it when jugdes (lawyers ) spend days searching through information/documentation for a single fact ( may or not be truly relevent ) that "proves" their objective, especially in this case when the sue-ee spent 13 seconds determining what to do in this emergency, and the lawyers now can spend 13 days searching through the facts to determine if they are liable for the victim's injuries. One can investigate any event/case and find some piece of information to prove or disprove one's objective, not that the fact is truly a realistc fact, just that it is possible explanation somewhere, in some galaxy, at some point in existence. Usually, the jury has really no clue what is really possible or not possible, and bases their conclusion from testimony from the most believeable "hired gun" expert that more than likely distorts what the truth really is.
I guess I'll just call 911. Or, if maybe I am liable if I don't provide expert assistence, as I am BLS, ACLS, ATLS certified, and have extensive training in critical care, maybe I won't call at all, and continue driving so I won't get "roped in", as there are almost always lawyers involved in any MVA. I don;t know if I want to risk my career, my accumulated net worth, my ability to provide for my children and pass my earnings onto them. Beautiful system we have.