Good Samaritan' can be sued after pulling friend from car wreckage

[brassmonkey]

becareful who you help
Alexandra Van Horn claims that Lisa Torti pulled her out of the vehicle, which had just crashed into a lamp post at 45mph, "like a rag doll" and contributed to her injuries.

Miss Torti, who was travelling in the car behind, says she believed the wrecked vehicle was about to burst into flames.

In a landmark decision that critics have said only proves the maxim that no good deed goes unpunished, the court decided that California's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency aid.

Justice Carlos Moreno noted in the ruling that people were not obligated to come to someone's aid but, if they did so, they had a "duty to exercise due care".

The 4-3 ruling was criticised by dissenting judges as "illogical" and that the legislation clearly aimed "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid".

The two women and three other staff from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, leaving at 1.30am in two cars.

Ms Van Horn's lawyers questioned why Ms Torti, having pulled her out by her shoulder, "dropped" her next to the car if she believed it was about to explode.

"The moral here is if you are rescuing or helping someone in an emergency, be sure and administer some medical care. Carry Band-Aids!" said Jim Porter, a California lawyer.
More...

Video here

[Sly]

So is Van Horn going to be charged for reckless endangerment and driving under the influence?

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

Good Samaritan' can be sued after pulling friend from car wreckage

That's correct.

I remember getting this warning many times from insurance, DMV, etc. If you come on an accident, even if you can help, you should just wait for the professionals or you can be sued.

If you pull them from a vehicle about to blow up, and you twist them wrong, and snap their spine, or some other things. Tada. Now you get sued.

Forget that you may have saved their life.

[Calico Jack]

Yep, just finished reading this story on Yahoo before I came here. Fucking amazing. Makes me wonder about some people.

[The Duck]

So it it deemed as okay to drive under the influence in the US? I see it all the time in the news, movies and such.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by kandah

So it it deemed as okay to drive under the influence in the US? I see it all the time in the news, movies and such.

Define, 'ok'. As it's not legal.

[tical]

Fuck that cunt, I can't believe that happened.

Like the friend pulled her from the car for fun, what fucking jury would let that happen?

[Sly]

Originally Posted by tical

Fuck that cunt, I can't believe that happened.

Like the friend pulled her from the car for fun, what fucking jury would let that happen?

I really don't think the story is telling us enough... how in the hell did she get paralyzed by being pulled out of the car? Did she hit her head on something?

Sounds like two drunk people turned disaster...

[darius19]

Originally Posted by Sly

I really don't think the story is telling us enough... how in the hell did she get paralyzed by being pulled out of the car? Did she hit her head on something?

Sounds like two drunk people turned disaster...

spine injury maybe ?

[brassmonkey]

yeah maybe she was moved and that did it but damn

[Z]

Kill the lawyers

[CyberHustler]

Should have just pulled out the camera and record the bitch burning for liveleak.

[tigermtb]

I am told there's a "Good Samaritan Law" here in Canada that if you helped someone like that car wreck, you can't be sued. I don't know for sure.

[John-ACWM]

No freakin' comment

[HorseShit]

Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles such as consent, parental rights, and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in Good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia[2]. In many countries which use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.
Contents

In Canada, Good Samaritan Acts are a provincial power. Each province has its own act, such as Ontario[16] and British Columbia's[17] respective Good Samaritan Acts; Alberta's Emergency Medical Aid Act; [18] and Nova Scotia's Volunteer Services Act[19] Only in Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction, does a person have a general duty to respond if he is first-aid or medically certified.[20] In British Columbia persons have a duty to respond only where a child is endangered.

An example of a typical Canadian law is provided here, from Ontario's Good Samaritan Act, 2001, section 2:

Protection from liability 2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[21]

Paramedics in Ontario perform what is referred to as an Aid to Capacity Evaluation in the event that treatment and/or transport to a medical facility is refused. The evaluation also includes an indication to whom the assessment refers if not the patient (e.g.: parent, or substitute decision maker). The patient or substitute is requested to verbalize/communicate understanding of clinical situation, appreciation of applicable risks, ability to make an alternative plan for care and a responsible adult on scene. Any negative response to the above would suggest incapacity and necessary intervention would occur. Finally, paramedics request a signature for refusal of service: "I have been advised that I should have treatment and that treatment is available immediately, I refuse such treatment and transportation to hospital having been informed of the risks involved. I assume full responsibility arising out of such refusal.

[MaDalton]

cars don't explode - blame Hollywood

[quantum-x]

In France it's illegal to stand by.
You pass someone in need, if you don't administer help, you're fucked.

[Doctor Dre]

Only in america. This country's law system has gone nuts.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by jdavis

Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles such as consent, parental rights, and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in Good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia[2]. In many countries which use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.
Contents

In Canada, Good Samaritan Acts are a provincial power. Each province has its own act, such as Ontario[16] and British Columbia's[17] respective Good Samaritan Acts; Alberta's Emergency Medical Aid Act; [18] and Nova Scotia's Volunteer Services Act[19] Only in Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction, does a person have a general duty to respond if he is first-aid or medically certified.[20] In British Columbia persons have a duty to respond only where a child is endangered.

An example of a typical Canadian law is provided here, from Ontario's Good Samaritan Act, 2001, section 2:

Protection from liability 2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[21]

Paramedics in Ontario perform what is referred to as an Aid to Capacity Evaluation in the event that treatment and/or transport to a medical facility is refused. The evaluation also includes an indication to whom the assessment refers if not the patient (e.g.: parent, or substitute decision maker). The patient or substitute is requested to verbalize/communicate understanding of clinical situation, appreciation of applicable risks, ability to make an alternative plan for care and a responsible adult on scene. Any negative response to the above would suggest incapacity and necessary intervention would occur. Finally, paramedics request a signature for refusal of service: "I have been advised that I should have treatment and that treatment is available immediately, I refuse such treatment and transportation to hospital having been informed of the risks involved. I assume full responsibility arising out of such refusal.

Thanks for posting that.

I recently updated my First Aid Certification through St. John's Ambulance - and that's basically the lowdown the instructor gave during the course. But despite the Good Samaritan act provisions - St. John's Ambulance also advises you made an attempt to identify yourself as a First Aid person to the victim (if they are conscious) and ask if they wish you to help them. If they're unconscious and unable to respond - legally its considered implied consent.

Still, I question the sensibility and mindset of any judge who would rule in favour of the injured person in a lawsuit against someone who voluntarily comes to their aid - unless it was proven to be intentional and malicious injury.

[Kudles]

That is crazy. so much for being a nice person

[Danny B]

That's just wrong on so many levels.

[tony286]

thats so fucked up

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

Only in america. This country's law system has gone nuts.

i think alot of people are jumping the gun, there are times when suing a "good samaritan" would be valid and most likely anyone here would also be suing.

Lets say you are parachuting and land in a tree , and some drunken idiot insists on trying to pry you out with a stick instead of waiting for the proper equipment, you fall and break both legs. You happen to work as a treadmill demonstrator and you are a single mother with 5 kids. Of course you would sue

[Violetta]

fucked up...

[quantum-x]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

i think alot of people are jumping the gun, there are times when suing a "good samaritan" would be valid and most likely anyone here would also be suing.

Lets say you are parachuting and land in a tree , and some drunken idiot insists on trying to pry you out with a stick instead of waiting for the proper equipment, you fall and break both legs. You happen to work as a treadmill demonstrator and you are a single mother with 5 kids. Of course you would sue

Or, let's say you were drunk in charge of a vehicle and had an accident, and someone dragged your ass out of the car...

[Godsmack]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

cars don't explode - blame Hollywood

Thatch not entirely true.. a car can get filled with fuel vapor which can explode.. I've seen it unfortunately

[sexandcash]

(shakes head in disgust)
that is some fucking gratitude for you....
makes you not want to help people....
jesus

thank you politically correct america and your ridiculous court rulings...