Wait, there's a baby in that bathwater... Ca. Good Samaritan ruling

[grislyatoms]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection;_ylt=AryaZHHU5BvvYoN7Zc55UD4DW7oF

LOS ANGELES – Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court 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.

Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.

Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.

I see. Wait until the wrecked vehicle actually starts burning before getting folks out to avoid liability...

[roo_ster]

We are ruled by scumbag lawyers and black-robed tyrants.

May they all go straight to Hell.

[esheato]

Oh that gun on my hip...that's only for my families defense. Ohh, there a bad guy in your store? Not my problem.

I'll be damned if I put myself out there to end up like this poor gal.

----------------
Listening to: The Eagles - Desperado

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its in the details. been out drinking? over react and jerk an injured person from car and paralyze them?  expect trouble

[Boomhauer]

Ms. Van Horn ain't much of a "friend" is she?

[geronimotwo]

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.

Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.

so, is the beverly hills atty more successful because of where he lives, or does he live there because he's more successful?

[MechAg94]

its in the details. been out drinking? over react and jerk an injured person from car and paralyze them?  expect trouble

If you know something more about this case, please post a link or type a few more words. 

[Werewolf]

Ms. Van Horn ain't much of a "friend" is she?

You got that right! 

Add the court ruling and next time she'll just let her friend die!

I gotta wonder how many people are gonna do just that in the future.

Imagine walking up to a guy in a burning car, telling him I could save ya but you've got to sign this release and waiver of liability first.

In reality the ruling just means most folk won't even bother to stop let alone try to help.

The judge in that court was an IDIOT who never stopped to think about the consequences of his ruling.

[gunsmith]

While this is not good, cars don't just explode ( unless it is on TV )
I know enough not to move accident victims unless absolutely necessary.
I have a feeling these "friends" were not really that close.

[makattak]

You got that right! 

Add the court ruling and next time she'll just let her friend die!

I gotta wonder how many people are gonna do just that in the future.

Imagine walking up to a guy in a burning car, telling him I could save ya but you've got to sign this release and waiver of liability first.

In reality the ruling just means most folk won't even bother to stop let alone try to help.

The judge in that court was an IDIOT who never stopped to think about the consequences of his ruling.

This is, unfortunately, a problem with a LARGE number of people in the world today: liberals, socialists, environmentalists, etc...

These people have an idea; it sounds good; thus, it becomes what "WE HAVE TO DO!"

I'll give you an example: which is better for the environment, cloth diapers that you can reuse over and over or disposable diapers which just go into a landfill?

[Nick1911]

I'll give you an example: which is better for the environment, cloth diapers that you can reuse over and over or disposable diapers which just go into a landfill?

Or paper towels (paper being a renewable resource) or electric hand driers that "save trees" (By burning coal to generate the 2400 odd watts to run the thing...)

[makattak]

Or paper towels (paper being a renewable resource) or electric hand driers that "save trees" (By burning coal to generate the 2400 odd watts to run the thing...)

Exactly, most "environmentally-conscious"... people... will say "We're using cloth diapers because we care about the environment!"

Really, you do? Those cloth diapers require a significant amount of water and harsh chemicals to treat and clean each time you use them, creating a significant amount of waste.

Just because you can't see beyond the immediate consequences of your action does not negate the UNFORSEEN consequences. (Kind of like bailing out the automakers.... but I digress)

[Creeping Incrementalism]

While this is not good, cars don't just explode ( unless it is on TV )
I know enough not to move accident victims unless absolutely necessary.
I have a feeling these "friends" were not really that close.

Unless the person who got pulled out specifically told the woman who pulled her out not to, I don't see how this can be seen as a clear-cut case of when someone should not be helped.  The car could still start burning very quickly, and anyway, based on the influence of TV in society, it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to believe that a car could explode.

its in the details. been out drinking? over react and jerk an injured person from car and paralyze them?  expect trouble

And in the details is the fact that it is not proven that the woman being pulled out was paralyzed form being pulled out.  Considering that she said she couldn't move before she was pulled, it is quite possible that the car crash paralyzed her. 

The judge in that court was an IDIOT who never stopped to think about the consequences of his ruling.

It wasn't one judge--it was four.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6498405&page=1

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the real details won't come out till the trial thats coming

[lupinus]

While this is not good, cars don't just explode ( unless it is on TV )

No, but they do burn.  You leave someone where they are unless moving them is needed to keep them from being harmed further.

For all we know, Torti saw or smelled gas leaking, or saw something that those of us who were not there didn't see.  Do me a favor.  If I'm in the passenger seat of a car that's just been wrecked and you see or smell such, by all means pull me out BEFORE the thing explodes.  K? Thanks.

Unfortunately, a lot of what one person can do to get someone out of a car quickly could be described as "like a rag doll."  The whole smacking into a light pole at 45 mph of course had nothing to do with it, nope it was the friend.  Anyone willing to bet that Torti has more money then the driver of the car?

Another big question is was Van Horn conscious?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20080103/OPINION/791506854
The perils of doing a good deed
Law Review
By Jim Porter
Email Print Comment
Recommend
Alexandra Van Horn and her friends were relaxing, smoking pot at Lisa Torti’s house. They all went to a bar about 10 p.m. and left just before closing time.
They were in two cars. Van Horn was a passenger in the first vehicle and Torti a passenger in the second vehicle, following closely behind.

Car Crash
The first vehicle spun out and crashed into a curb and light standard at about 45 mph. The front airbags deployed.
Torti in the second vehicle ran up and fearing the car was going to “blow up,” removed Van Horn from the crashed car. Torti said she cradled and carefully lifted her friend out of the car. Van Horn said Torti grabbed her and pulled her out of the car “like a rag doll.”
Van Horn was so appreciative of Torti’s extracting her from the vehicle, she sued her good friend. She claimed Torti caused permanent damage to her spinal cord, rendering her a paraplegic.

Emergency Medical Care Law
Torti defended Van Horn’s lawsuit citing the law that protects emergency caregivers from liability, which reads: “No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.”
The trial court ruled in favor of Torti, finding her immune from her friend’s lawsuit under the emergency care statute. I.e. removing Van Horn from the car is medical care like administering CPR — the medical caregiver is 100 percent protected — even if they screw up — even if they are negligent.

Good Samaritan Law
Van Horn, the rescued person, appealed to the Court of Appeal claiming that Torti did not render emergency medical care, but merely pulled her from the vehicle — as she said — dragged her from the vehicle, further worsening her spinal injury. I.e. there is no emergency medical care immunity. The court then looked at California’s Good Samaritan law.
California has a Good Samaritan law, a different law protecting rescuers: Generally that no one has a duty to come to the aid of another unless there is some special relationship between the rescuer and the rescued; and if anyone volunteers to assist another, that volunteer is not liable, even if negligent, unless he/she increases the risk of the injured person’s harm or the harm is suffered because the injured person relies upon the volunteer.
The Good Samaritan law provides less protection to a rescuer than the emergency medical caregiver law.

Dueling Laws
The issue in the Van Horn v. Torti case is which law applied — the absolute emergency medical caregiver law or the lesser Good Samaritan law. Under the Good Samaritan law, Torti would be liable if she increased the risk of harm to Van Horn, such as dragging her out of the car “like a rag doll” when she had an injured back.
On the other hand, if Torti rendered emergency medical care to Van Horn, Torti is completely immune from liability, rag doll dragging or not.

Ruling
The Court of Appeal found that Torti did not provide emergency medical care to Van Horn, so she was not fully immune from a lawsuit. Unlike performing CPR or splinting a broken arm or back, pulling someone from a car crash is not emergency medical care — or so ruled the Court of Appeal.
It is up to a jury to determine whether Torti was or was not negligent in how she removed Van Horn from the car and whether her actions further injured her (former) friend. Van Horn’s suit was reinstated.

Editorial Comment
I tend to think the Court of Appeal got this one wrong. Torti should be protected as a person who in good faith rendered emergency medical care at the scene of an emergency, which immunity is more protective than the limited Good Samaritan law.
The moral here is if you are rescuing/helping someone in an emergency, be sure and administer some medical care. Carry Band-Aids!
The case is being reviewed by the California Supreme Court, so we will know in a few months.

Jim Porter is an attorney with Porter•Simon, with offices in Truckee, South Lake Tahoe and Reno. He may be reached at porter@portersimon.com or at the firm’s web site www.portersimon.com.
© 2008