California Court: Good Samaritans can be sued

[JPINFV]

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 for comment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...=002&sc=964

Something to think about for all of the Ricky Rescues out there.

It should be an interesting case since the prosecution is going to have to prove that the good Samaritan's actions caused the paralysis. On one hand the current accepted medical standard is C-Spine precautions. On the other hand, there's no real evidence to support the current medical standard.

[ERDoc]

Nonmedical people are not expected to know the current literature.

This suit is just absolutely absurd. I guess this poor lady knows who her friend truly is, nothing but a money grubbing whore. It wasn't the unseatbelted impact into a stationary object at 45 mph with the resultant throw into the windshield that paralysed her. No, it was her friend who single handedly tried to get her fat (300+ pound probably, though I have no proof) ass out of the vehicle so she wouldn't die who caused her the problems. Maybe it is time that John/Jane Q Public have to start dealing with the frivolous law suits like we do in medicine. I feel really bad for the lady being sued and hope the case is thrown out of court. Next time, let her burn and make S'mores.

Sorry to be so cynical but these completely inappropriate lawsuits just really bother me. I'll step off my soapbox now.

[JPINFV]

Nonmedical people are not expected to know the current literature.

.

I'm willing to bet that the jury will know more about the current literature by the time the trial is done than most medical professionals.

[n0ssb]

There is no way to know if the subject was already paralyzed from the accident, due to mech of injuries and that the GF tried to rescue her friend because she thought the car was going to catch fire, is a legimate attempt at a rescue. U known how big the girls were and how hard it was to remove the subject from the car, the rescuer prob thought and still thanks that she save d the other girls life and may have. It is up to the courts now and a jury to decide.. Good Sam laws in mosts states are medical in nature, but a rescue to perform med care would be part of that. Here we have enen put SAr teams under the good Sam act in Colorado.

As far as the suit goes, you can sue anyone at anytime, it weather you win or not..

[Arctickat]

It wasn't the unseatbelted impact into a stationary object at 45 mph with the resultant throw into the windshield that paralysed her.

I see nothing in the article that indicates this is how she was injured. Do you know facts of this case that are not common knowledge? Was this your patient? Were you there?

This is quoted from the transcript located here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme...ts/vanhorn7.pdf

The air bags in the front of

WATSON's vehicle deployed (A.A.Vo1. I1 p. 245, Exhibit "I"). WATSON sat

in the vehicle for a few minutes and then exited on his own. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.

237, Exhibit "H"). FREED remained in the rear seat, unable to move or speak

and was in pain. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.237, Exhibit "H"). VAN HORN was stunned

but conscious and able to unhook her seatbelt. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 238, Exhibit

"H"). She was in intense pain but could feel her legs. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 250,

Exhibit "I").

Granted, she's most likely full of crap and never had the belt on, but you don't know that and in the courts her testimony will be taken at face value. It just irks me when people pass off wild assumptions based on "educated" guesses as the probable facts when in truth there is no actual foundation in fact. [/rant]

[ERDoc]

I see nothing in the article that indicates this is how she was injured. Do you know facts of this case that are not common knowledge? Was this your patient? Were you there?

No I wasn't, if I was it would obviously be a HIPPA violation, but thanks for asking. I guess you missed the part where I said "I have no proof." It was nothing more than rant about the stupidity of these frivolous lawsuits that are always popping up. Anyone with minimal experience can fill in some of the basic details. :roll:

[Arctickat]

No, it was her friend who single handedly tried to get her fat (300+ pound probably, though I have no proof) ass...

Apologies for my misunderstanding, I understood the "I have no proof" disclaimer to apply only to the weight issue because of the way it was written. That's why I didn't call you on that too.

Anyone with minimal experience can fill in some of the basic details. :roll:

Yeah, even if they are totally wrong.

[crotchitymedic1986]

Doesnt surprise me at all. But the good news is that this just allows the case to be heard by a jury, doesnt mean she will win the suit (this time).

[ERDoc]

Whatever man. You've been to enough accidents to know the deal (I assume). Like I said, it is these assinine lawsuits that in the end will lead to more people getting hurt. If I have to worry that I am going to get sued and have my life totally disrupted because I, in good faith, tried to help and pull them out of a car that I thought was going to catch fire, well, then they can get themselves out next time.

[Arctickat]

If I have to worry that I am going to get sued and have my life totally disrupted because I, in good faith, tried to help and pull them out of a car that I thought was going to catch fire, well, then they can get themselves out next time.

Then why not just say that rather than embellish your story with assumptions and rumour mongering? No doubt you've been around long enough to know what that does for people too.