Good Samaritan Law overturned in CA

[4RE KLR]

Is anyone surprised this comes from California?

Geez you guys out there have some pretty screwed up laws.

Fred
I agree with you 100%. If I can help save a human life, I will do whatever it takes. I just think we need to help each other when we can. It was the way I was brought up.

[Ron61]

Steve,

I admit that we have some pretty stupid laws out here but California isn't the only state that has them. I was brought up to help anyone that I could in any way that I could but that was before they would then turn around and sue you for everything they can think of. I would still help anyone that I could, but as I posted earlier, if there was an accident and there were people there when I arrived I would keep going. I have the keys to several of my friends and neighbors houses and watch them while they are on vacations and such, but if anything were stolen I could still be held responsible for it and they could sue me and most likely win.
From what I have read and seen this lawsuit isn't one of those just to make money but does have some merit. However that is only what I see and read and you know the press is as honest as any politician in their reporting. If they were correct and the car wasn't in any danger of burning or exploding, then the woman should have waited until someone who knew a little about helping a person out of a wrecked car arrived.

Ron

[Anthony]

This case is the reason for the law in the first place. If you help someone, and everything turns out good, no one is sued. Law isn't needed. If you help someone, and there is a bad outcome, then the "helper" should be protected unless malicious intent can be proven. Not everybody knows exactly what to do in every situation.

It's just ironic that the law is being questioned for the kind of case it was written for, well it's not really ironic, because alot of money can be made for the attorney.

The correct thing to do is to call 911, and let the people "trained" to handle emergencies do the work and more importantly, they are covered by "malpractice" insurance by their employer, maybe the city itself.

[Ron61]

Anthony,

We really don't know anything but what we read and see about this case. Only the people involved actually know the real facts. I agree with your statement about the correct thing to do is call 911, but what if the injured person is bleeding badly or there are other factors involved that would cause their death or worse injury by waiting until an emergency crew can respond? Then you would be liable for being sued for not helping. I also agree that many people panic and are not trained and that is another factor. There is just no way to have any law that can possibly cover every conceivable condition. That is why I hate the Words, Go By The Book. They can be used in many cases and as guidelines but can't possibly cover every situation.

Ron

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Anthony,

We really don't know anything but what we read and see about this case. Only the people involved actually know the real facts.

They may know more of the facts, but there are likely important facts that nobody may/will never know, such as what action truly caused the injury, the accident itself, or dragging her out of the car, or a combination of both. The victum's memory may be distorted by the trauma experience.

Originally Posted by Ron61

I agree with your statement about the correct thing to do is call 911, but what if the injured person is bleeding badly or there are other factors involved that would cause their death or worse injury by waiting until an emergency crew can respond? Then you would be liable for being sued for not helping.

By not helping them, you still wouldn't know for sure, that if they had died, that you could have prevented it, and if you did help, and they lived, that doesn't mean your actions saved them, as they may have lived no matter what. But if you did help them, and they had a bad outcome, I'm sure there would be something that some lawyer could find that you didn;t do correctly that caused/contributed to their damages, whether it was a strong possibility or not, it doesn't matter. If there is money to be made, there's a strong will to pursue it.

Finally, if you choose not to help, I don't think any bystander can be sued for not helping.

Also, there is the risk of contracting hepatitis, AIDS from blood contamination.

You do what you want. I'll call 911.

[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.

[Anthony]

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.

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.

[Jamo]

Oh, and one more little tidbit from the actual decision (not the media reports)...

The plaintiff and defendant both smoked dope and then went drinking just before the accident occurred.

[tcrist]

Thanks for the info Jamo.
One question, Can a person get sued for not helping?
I figure that could be a long and drawn out answer. It probably depends on if you are the first person there after an accident or incident. Doesn't need to be an auto accident. Could be a house fire. Any emergency would probably be the same.


Terry

[Jamo]

Terry...yes, under several theories associated with common law tort theories of reckless disgrard and general negilgence, but there has to be proof of ability to provide assistence and lack of threatened harm to the person who allegedly failed to take action. Tough case to prove though...can't require folks to put themselves in peril.

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.

[Jamo]

Actually, your opinions haven't impressed me for quite some time, nor does some medical blogger's that you drag in from the internet.

It was more likely the medical lobby that caused the statute to be placed where it was, versus the trial lawyers...but that would involve you actually understanding something you choose to opine about. An unlikely scenario.

Your montonous screeching against anything involving lawyers or the law, which you obviously know little about based upon your postings in various threads, simply makes your commentary all the less relevant. Some lawyer hurt you real bad.

Your apparent position that intoxicated persons should receive immunity when they act upon their visions of pink elephants or black helicopters is simply incomprehensible.

Being more concerned about your "accumulated wealth" than the needs of a fellow human being, especailly given your stated training, says everything one needs to know about you. A wealth of knowlege and training wasted on a damaged soul.

Sad.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Some lawyer hurt you real bad.
.

Actually no lawyer hurt me bad yet, and I am determined not to let that happen, they have just hurt the entire population of the usa.

Originally Posted by Jamo

Being more concerned about your "accumulated wealth" than the needs of a fellow human being, especailly given your stated training, says everything one needs to know about you. A wealth of knowlege and training wasted on a damaged soul.

So there is nothing wrong with somebody (plaintiff and lawyer) gaining personal wealth at the expense of another who did nothing wrong ?

Originally Posted by Jamo

Your apparent position that intoxicated persons should receive immunity when they act upon their visions of pink elephants or black helicopters is simply incomprehensible.

Were they legally intoxicated? Obviously, one can make multiple points/case from either side. It boils down to "do you believe if someone provides aid, voluntarily, in good faith, that they should or should not be held liable for any perceived injuries".

Yeah I'm currently involved in a legal suit, suing my GC for construction issues, that by contractural agreement, he was obligated to complete, but the contract is kind of like the law, it's really not worth the paper it's printed on. People hide behind LLC's, are uncollectabe, law has it written that way. This is a small problem, but still very irritating, kind of llike a wart.

I was involved in a law suit from a doper who accidently overdosed himself, died, about 10 years ago, care from an ex-partner. Well, my (our) malpractice ins carrier had gone belly up in the mean time, and eveybody in my group, 20 of us, were going to be held personally liable for this idiots actions. Well, some money was scrounged up, and the doper wife accepted, so none of us lost any personal items, and our insurance didn't go up either. Thank god.

I look at the current financial crises, caused by the politians (lawyers) screwing around with the economy, fannie and freddie, leaving us for the bail out, affecting the economy. Not only causing the problem but failing to hold people accountable for the problem as well.



I look at my dad's retirement, he lost about 60% or more. I'm sure he's not the only one, people making money $20-40 per hour of real labor, and the wall street people play insider trading, CEO's and upper management walking away with millions before their company goes bankrupt, etc, and nothing done about it. Again, this goes back to the gov, ie the people running it.

I see medical care being hurt by policies/law. Why don't many hospitals have neurosurgeons on call for head trauma, because their malpractice goes sky high to cover some doper with head trauma. That's why there are only select hopsitals that cover major trauma. Doctor's leaving state's because of malpractice issues, usually because they just have a case against them in which they did nothing wrong, case was settled or they won, but still they lose their insurance or the cost is prohibitive to do business. Basically they were run out of town when they did nothing wrong. Happens all the time. In fact just over xmas I met a podiatrist where this happened.

This samaritan thing does hit home, as I am torn between helping someone and risking my personal health, as the victim and lawyer could see me (or anybody) as a pot of gold. In my state, health care providers are specifically not covered by my state's samaritan's law. Wonder why?

In the US system, if you're sued, and win, you still lose because it cost's thousands of diollars.

In general, the laws are really $hit, and they are what runs, governs, and hurts the economy. Allowing bad business and people to get away with it. Who wrote the laws?

As for you, like a lawyer, you nit-pick to prove your point, just like in this case. Pathetic. Your posts are far from being a good moderator, often stating or inferring an opinion in a thread where your trying to be un-biased moderator.

The older I get, the more screwed up I see the US gov. Who in the gov makes the laws/policies ? The USA could be a much better place for business/life.

You are part of the problem.

That's why I feel the way I do.

[Joe Wicked]

I can't believe that I am posting to this, but you cannot expect a Moderator to not have and share his opinion and beliefs. A moderator is tasked with running a site the way the owner wishes it run. If the owner has an issue with it, that is his responsibility to deal with.

As far as the laws go, I know Texas has some kind of law that prosecutes you for not stopping and rendering aid. If you drive by the scene of an accident and no one else is there already rendering aid, you can be arrested for not stopping.

[Paul F]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It's the same with lawyers. Sure there are some professional gold hunters, like the class-action guys. But someone has to hire a lawyer and want to sue someone first. Then usually, some jury has to make a judgement.

No lawyer awarded $10million to a stupid woman that dropped hot coffee in her lap at a McDonnald's. A jury did that.

Blame those that hire the lawyers and blame the juries that make the judgements.

[Jamo]

Thanks gentlemen.

You know what's funny?

The law, even as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, completely protects medical care providers when they use their skills to render assistence in an emergency. Guess some other excuse other than protecting one's "accumulated wealth" will need to be dreamed up for refusing to help...

Nitpick? Ya damn right. Sure hope my CPA nitpicks when he does my taxes. I'm glad my engine builder picked every nit when he did my heads. I sure as hell hope my doctor nitpicks when he reads medical journals before offering an opinion..."I missed that" just isn't acceptable.

The level of intoxication and whether it rendered the defendant's actions unreasonable is a question for the jury. This was an appeal from a summary judgement motion...not a final ajudication. Smoking dope and going to a bar...I don't know, not my first choice for someone to care for my ass when I'm incapable.

[Buzz]

Well said.