[Rhodes22-list] Hard Cases Make Bad Law- Rendering Aid in an Emergency.

[Michael D. Weisner]

Ben,

Although EMS trained individuals are told that they are covered by the Good 
Sam provision, most carry liability/malpractice insurance (belts and 
suspenders attitude.)  Most are insured by their association, emergency 
service agency or sports club.

I feel for the person who provided the assistance.  The problem is that an 
untrained individual can easily do more damage and should wait for emergency 
personnel to arrive, UNLESS waiting would make rescue impossible.  It is the 
latter clause that will more than likely become the crux of the case.  An 
EMS trained individual would probably not attempt to move a person from a 
car wreck without appropriate assistance and equipment (back board, neck 
brace, etc.) unless the person was in "imminent danger" (explosion, fire, 
etc.) and the exposure could not be mitigated otherwise (i.e., extinguish 
fire.)

The filing is at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S152360.DOC

The question is not whether you would fail to provide assistance at the 
scene of an accident but rather would you try to think of another solution 
before attempting to move a severely injured person without proper equipment 
or help.

Unfortunately, the outcome for both individuals in this case is terrible.

Mike
s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
Nissequogue River, NY

From: "Ben Cittadino" <bcittadino at dcs-law.com> Sent: Monday, December 22, 
2008 11:36 AM
>
> In the Spirit of the Christmas Season (sarcastic reference) I thought I 
> would
> reprint this blurb that came across my desk today. Frankly, although I
> practice law as a plaintiff's trial lawyer I think this is a bad decision,
> based upon a flawed interpretation of a statute that was passed in order 
> to
> encourage people to render assistance in an emergency. I am, quite 
> frankly,
> appalled that the Court would be so short-sighted as to ignore the long 
> term
> public policy good intended by the statute in favor of a misguided attempt
> to find money to aid this one victim.
>
> To be fair, I haven't read the decision (only the blurb below), and I hope
> there's more to it than appears in the brief summary.
>
> It won't stop me, and I expect it won't stop most of you, from rendering 
> aid
> in an emergency but the decision is a troubling one the say the least:
>
>
> "CALIFORNIA HIGH COURT ALLOWS SUIT AGAINST GOOD SAMARITAN
> The California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last Thursday that the state's
> immunity from liability for emergency help doesn't apply to ordinary
> citizens coming to the rescue. The ruling, Van Horn v. Watson et al., 
> allows
> Lisa Torti to be sued by Alexandra Van Horn, a friend whom Torti pulled 
> from
> a crashed car she feared would explode, allegedly causing or worsening
> injuries that left Van Horn permanently paralyzed. The state law, which 
> bars
> suits against anyone who "in good faith, and not for compensation, renders
> emergency care at the scene of an emergency," does not distinguish between
> types of emergency care, but the majority said the context shows it was
> meant to be limited to medical care."
>
> Ben C.
>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/Hard-Cases-Make-Bad-Law--Rendering-Aid-in-an-Emergency.-tp21130736p21130736.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to 
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>