Good Samaritan Law overturned in CA

[Tom Kirkham]

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...,6547898.story

[tcrist]

If this person had not pulled her from the car and it cought on fire and burned her then she probably would have sued over that too.

You know what is bad about this? If you do not help someone and they die then you can be charged with not helping them and possibly causing their death.


Terry

[Jamo]

Moved to the Lounge.

[Silverback51]

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

As cold as it may sound, I don't get involved any longer.

[Ron61]

As bad as this sounds if I were to see an accident I would not stop but speed up to get as far away as possible. If you try to help them you are going to be sued for some reason. If you don't then you will be sued. Maybe they should call the Supreme Court Judges when there is an accident and let them hold a meeting to decide if the people can be removed from a burning vehicle before the approved medical people get there. I am sorry to have reached a point where I feel this way, but I just can't afford to have everything I own taken away because I either tried to help someone or didn't try to.

Ron

[Anthony]

Nothing new. The good samaritan law has never applied to health professionals providing assistance, and actually, health providers have already been sued and lost providing assistance. Now they're applying it to the general public as well.

Law was designed this way for the lawyers, by politicians (lawyers), so they can make more money.

basically, don;t stop. I don't think you can be sued for not stopping to provide help.

[LudicrousSpeed]

Pure insanity.

There HAS to be someone of sound mind with a say in all this that can put the brakes on before its too late.

As hard as the lawyers try, you cannot define every situation in Black&White in some book. Human beings can justify anything and make it law (for reference look up some guys named Hitler & Stalin). As society swings away from Christian beliefs and towards secular rational, this garbage becomes more and more common.

[tcrist]

Originally Posted by LudicrousSpeed

Pure insanity.

As society swings away from Christian beliefs and towards secular rational, this garbage becomes more and more common.

What has this got to do with religion?

Terry

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by LudicrousSpeed

Pure insanity.
As society swings away from Christian beliefs and towards secular rational, this garbage becomes more and more common.

Yes, but at least we'll save a few alter boys.

[jhv48]

Moot point!

The last Good Samaritan left the State last week!

[Anthony]

It's only about money. Fishin for someone with deep pockets.

[392cobra]

If someone was in dire straits and required help that I could provide,I would jump in to save the person without any thought.

To do anything else would run counter to my moral fibre.

[Buzz]

Automatically, I am against frivolous lawsuits and the suing of well intentioned people, but after reading the details of the incident, I have to ask how far should the good samaritan act extend to protect someone who panics and acts irrationally - even foolishly - while attempting to "help" someone else?

If some kind soul in a department store pushes you down the stairs to save you from being hit by a runaway shopping cart and you broke your arm (or your neck) how would that play out?

According to others on the scene, there was no indication of a reasonable chance that the car was going to explode. The samaritan apparently panicked, jerked the victim out of the car and dropped her on the ground right next to it. Someone thinking rationally would have acted differently. If her poor judgement and rash action indeed contributed to the spinal damage and resultant paralysis; how do you feel about it looking from the point of view of the person who now, instead of a few weeks in traction and a neckbrace, is facing a life sentence in a wheelchair?

Its a sad situation for sure, and I feel for both sides of the issue, but at the end of the day we all have to accept responsibility for our actions, even when our intentions are good. If you, like me, cannot in good conscience walk away from a fellow human being in distress, it is wise to at least prepare yourself with a bit of knowledge and forethought before jumping into a situation and finding yourself out of your depth - yes/no?

[Ron61]

Buzz,

For the most part I agree with you and Fred, but the way things are now I would be afraid to stop. I did help a woman out of their overturned car once as I was following them down the freeway and suddenly for no known reason the man just veered off the highway and the car turned over in a plowed field. I stopped and ran out there and he was crawling out and said he was ok but would I check on his wife. Fortunately she wasn't hurt but couldn't get the seat belt loose so I crawled in under her so I could take her weight and managed to get her seat belt loose and she didn't fall as she was on top of me and he came around and helped me and we got her out ok. They were very appreciative and when I asked him what happened that made him just drive off the highway like that he said he had no idea. At that time I had a first aid card that the state issued if you took the classes and passed but it has long since lapsed and I don't think they even issue them any more. In this case I don't think the law suit is frivolous, but now so many people will use any excuse to sue. If you help a person out of a wreck and they claim you caused them to hurt their neck, remember the Whiplash Willie movie, that is an almost impossible thing to not lose everything you have over. It is a sad state of affairs when you have to first think of all of the ramifications that may happen before helping someone. That is why I said that if I came up on an accident I would just keep going. I would stop if there were no other people there and try to help, but only then. If I see other people then I keep going.

Ron

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Automatically, I am against frivolous lawsuits and the suing of well intentioned people, but after reading the details of the incident, I have to ask how far should the good samaritan act extend to protect someone who panics and acts irrationally - even foolishly - while attempting to "help" someone else?

If some kind soul in a department store pushes you down the stairs to save you from being hit by a runaway shopping cart and you broke your arm (or your neck) how would that play out?

According to others on the scene, there was no indication of a reasonable chance that the car was going to explode. The samaritan apparently panicked, jerked the victim out of the car and dropped her on the ground right next to it. Someone thinking rationally would have acted differently. If her poor judgement and rash action indeed contributed to the spinal damage and resultant paralysis; how do you feel about it looking from the point of view of the person who now, instead of a few weeks in traction and a neckbrace, is facing a life sentence in a wheelchair?

Its a sad situation for sure, and I feel for both sides of the issue, but at the end of the day we all have to accept responsibility for our actions, even when our intentions are good. If you, like me, cannot in good conscience walk away from a fellow human being in distress, it is wise to at least prepare yourself with a bit of knowledge and forethought before jumping into a situation and finding yourself out of your depth - yes/no?

You don't know enough of the details to really assess whether the victim was damaged by the accident alone, being pulled out of the car, or a function of both, and no one my truly be able to determine what was the insulting injury. You don't know the extent of the injuries, did she suffer a broken neck, with severe injury to the spinal cord and significant paralysis to the upper and lower extremities, or does she suffer from a herniated disc and now has some numbness in her arm. I view these completely differently. "Pulled out of the car like a rag doll", it wouldn't surprise me if the victim was 200 lbs, and the samaritin was 115 lbs.

What a bunch of crap for everybody but the lawyers.

[Buzz]

You don't know enough of the details to really assess whether the victim was damaged by the accident alone, being pulled out of the car, or a function of both, and no one my truly be able to determine what was the insulting injury.

That's right - I don't know the actual cause of the injury; and neither do you, which is why I typed:
If her poor judgement and rash action indeed contributed to the spinal damage and resultant paralysis...

I simply presented another possible point of view based on what the report actually said, as opposed to jumping on the bandwagon and assuming that the samaritan was the real victim in this with no facts to back that up.

You don't know the extent of the injuries, did she suffer a broken neck, with severe injury to the spinal cord and significant paralysis to the upper and lower extremities, or does she suffer from a herniated disc and now has some numbness in her arm

Yes I do, actually, because I read the article (did you?). The nature and extent of the injury was described as spinal cord damage resulting in paraplegia. If you choose to assume the info in the article is false and to inject suppositions about the relative weights and sizes of the two people involved then the sky's the limit on where this discussion could lead. I just tried to stick to what was written.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Buzz

because I read the article (did you?).

Not really, I just scanned it. Missed that part.

Although we try to be logical, and try to determine the true cause, effect, raminfications of one's actions, I believe the US/State court of law does not determine outcomes based on facts, but bases decisions on emotions and non-related facts such as race, age, etc. So, in reality, I believe in most cases the facts really don't matter. Laws don;t really matter either, as in this case, or the current FFR case vs SAI.

Was the driver drunk, did the victim know that and still get into the vehicle, was the driver speeding and the victim did not object. These are all relevent facts, but, in reality, they really don't matter. When someone is paralyzed, there is a lot of money to be made, and that's the moral of the story.

[Jamo]

Buzz...how dare you try to be logical and present an argument based on the facts presented for discussion. You're supposed to jump to conclusions and scream for scapegoats. Ya dumb basturd.

[Buzz]

Fixed...

Ethel!!! Git the shotgun! They're tryin to lynch a good ol' samaritan over in Californie! Turn loose the dawgs!! Wake the neighbors!! The redcoats are commin'...

[Jamo]

Buzz...much better. Now you are at one with the Borg.