A court in the United States has ruled that a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car can be sued. The Supreme Court of California has declared that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care. Justice Carlos Moreno ruled that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid. "If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote. According to the lawsuit, on 1 November 2004 Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that crashed into a lamp post at 45 mph. Lisa Torti was a passenger in a car that was following Van Horn and stopped after the crash. According to Torti she feared the wreckage was going to explode and she therefore pulled her friend out. Van Horn has testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage ‘like a rag doll' and blamed her for her paralysis. Torti argues that she should be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving ‘medical care' when she pulled Van Horn from the car. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/editors_corner/article/9758/ Think twice before helping an American in an emergency?
yeh thats major suckage, good intentions and all. well you should never move a seriously injured person, but then again if you really did think the car was gonna explode, then thats the only choice
getting sued for risking the life (since the car "could" explode every moment). Sued the lady back for "risking the security of other people by crashing"
its lose-lose situation, you stand back and call the ambulance and possibly watch the car blow up then you live you life wishing you helped or you help then the person blames their injury on you!! its crazy i tell ya
Several points here. On the surface, it would look like an ungrateful friend taking court action for an act of kindness; but it may not be as simple as just that... [1] The Good Samaritan Law cited generally protect first responders, trained first aiders, and other medical professionals from frivolous lawsuits. However there is nothing in the law that states a patient cannot sue. Whether such a suit would prevail in open court is quite another story. [2] This suit itself could be a sham. The bottom line is that the first girl is paralyzed, and may have caused her own crash, hence her insurance would probably not pay. At this point her friend volunteers to be sued, admits that she caused her injuries, and her insurance policy pays the first girl for life. Her insurance rates may go up, but hey... what are friends for, right? [3] One can only claim to be providing medical care if one is trained in medical care. Unless she's been trained and licensed as a doctor, nurse, physician assistant, emergency medical technician or paramedic, etc; she is incapable of rendering medical care. The intent of Good Samaritan laws are to prevent fear of lawsuits in passerby or bystanders at the scene of accidents so that they may render timely assistance. However, such law vary from state to state. Some, like California, only protect trained medical professionals. In other states, they cover anyone (professional or layperson).
^ some valid points, either way this ruling will make people think twice before trying to help others which is a shame.
ralphrepo provides valid points. Sometime I wonder where our society is heading and this lawsuit will make people think twice before providing aid in the future.
