California Court: Good Samaritans can be sued

[ERDoc]

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.

Again, you have missed the point. It was a rant and nothing more. It was pretty obvious that I had no facts other than what was in the article. I did not attempt to make it look like I had some inside information that was being withheld from everyone else. I'm sorry if I offended you over a pt that neither you nor I had anything to do with. Let's just end it at that and stick with the original topic.

[Doczilla]

The assclowns on the CSC have clearly taken leave of their senses. The Good Samaritan statutes are designed to protect people from liability in all but "gross negligence" or "willful or wanton misconduct". Even thought this layperson was misguided in believing that the car would explode, removing the patient from the car when she believed imminent danger existed is prudent. Laypeople should not be expected to know anything about spinal immobilization. As has been said here, anyone can hire a lawyer to sue anyone for anything, but the court should have stomped this one into the ground early on.

Hopefully, the defense's expert witnesses will expose this sham of an argument for what it is, and the court and jury will see the plaintiff for what she is.

I will once again reiterate that there has NEVER been a reported case of spinal injury being exacerbated by movement.

The CSC has done a disservice to patients everywhere by preventing more would be good samaritans (many of them trained healthcare professionals) from stopping to render aid and comfort in an emergency.

Pump the brakes, Arctickat. ERDoc was making a point.

'zilla

[Arctickat]

Pump the brakes, Arctickat. ERDoc was making a point.

'zilla

I know he was Doc, he just did it poorly and I had to call him on it.

Again, you have missed the point.

Of course I missed the point, because you did not make it clear in your first post for all the embellishments you included. Leave out the fluff and crap like this won't happen. I return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Even thought this layperson was misguided in believing that the car would explode, removing the patient from the car when she believed imminent danger existed is prudent.

Why then was she not prudent enough to move her friend away from the car after she pulled her out rather than leave her on the pole mere inches from the vehicle she thought was about to explode?

[ERDoc]

I know he was Doc, he just did it poorly and I had to call him on it.

Of course I missed the point, because you did not make it clear in your first post for all the embellishments you included. Leave out the fluff and crap like this won't happen. I return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Why then was she not prudent enough to move her friend away from the car after she pulled her out rather than leave her on the pole mere inches from the vehicle she thought was about to explode.

I think it was pretty plain to see that I had an embellished rant. I'll let others be the final judges should they decide to comment. I'm not sure which part of my rant didn't ooze sarcasm (maybe it was the money grubbing whore or maybe it was the smores).

As for the person that pulled the girl out, just because she had good intentions does not mean that she is the sharpest tool in the shed. She is not a professional rescuer and probably didn't give much thought to leaving the "victim" so close to the car. This girl should be given credit for at least acting on the thought that someone's life might be in danger and putting her safety aside.

[Richard B the EMT]

This case reminds me of a New York case from 30+ years ago.

My VAC (I was not on this call), responded to a car into an elevated train pillar, only to find a Citizens Band Radio "Rescue" crew on the scene. Without any knowledge of either the need, or the "how to" of C-spine immobilization, they had pulled the single occupant of the car out of the car, through the window, and placed her on the ground. Per the crew that responded, they were looking at my people like a puppy that just retrieved a ball, placed it down, and was waiting for the ball to again be thrown.

The woman would later be a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic.

You can bet that the VAC Crew Chief, when filling out the call report, attempted to document, Document, DOCUMENT EVERYTHING involved with this call, from care, or lack of, by the "rescue crew", to immobilization, and transport by my people.

And yes, while we were named in the lawsuit, due to the complete and thorough documentation, were declared not responsible for putting the then 22 year old woman into the wheelchair, and a sizable award from the courts given to the woman against the Rescue company.

The Rescue group very shortly thereafter was disbanded. Some wanted to learn what they should have already learned before the incident, so we trained them, and had them join my VAC. One actually elevated himself to being a VAC Officer!

[Arctickat]

She is not a professional rescuer and probably didn't give much thought to leaving the "victim" so close to the car.

From the court documents one can read that this "rescuer" was the type of person who is easily excited and prone to hysterics and over reactions. Add to this that she was drinking and doing drugs and I would surmise that she didn't put a whole lot of thought into anything including her attempt to rescue her friend in a somewhat prudent manner. If we, as medical professionals had done something like this, we would also have been held accountable. Why shouldn't she? Simply because she lacks the training that we have? Because she was too drunk and stoned to realize that her friend was in no imminent danger and could have stayed where she was? People told her to leave her friend where she was and that she was in no danger, but in her hysterics she didn't listen.

This girl should be given credit for at least acting on the thought that someone's life might be in danger and putting her safety aside.

If indeed that had been the case, but Torti by her own admission knew better.

From the Court documents

Before she extricated VAN HORN from the vehicle TORT1 knew that

the only smoke at the scene had come from the air bags. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 236,

4

Exhibit "H", A.A. Vol I1 p. 246, Exhibit "I"). She knew there was no danger

of fire. (A.A. Vol. I1 p. 248, Exhibit "I"). TORT1 also admitted that she never

smelled gasoline. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.249, Exhibit "I"). Moreover, OFOEGBU told

TORT1 not to touch VAN HORN until the paramedics arrived but she did not

respond. (A.A. Vol. I1 p.405, Exhibit "M"). Her actions were described as

"freaking out" and "hysterical."

One question I find interesting is that there was another person unable to move in the back of the car. Why is it that Torti was only concerned with Van Horn and not with Freed who was the more gravely injured of the two?

I contend that Torti acted stupidly and without thought to the consequences to Van Horn and that she should be held accountable if it can be proven that her actions did exacerbate the injury. Just as in Richard's post, people are always willing to help, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If people act stupidly because they don't know what they are doing, they have to be held accountable. There may not be a law against being stupid, but it's not e defense either.

If this case makes people think twice about rendering assistance, I say good. Too many times I've seen people do stupid things like this because they thought it was the right thing to do, most of the time they were just lucky they didn't cause further harm.

[Richard B the EMT]

I must mention that, according to Hollywood made TV and movies, ANY car in an accident will almost immediately catch fire and blow up.

Not the case.

The vehicles that burn and/or blow are devices to further along a plot line, to hurt the bad guys, or make the hero more heroic when they rescue the crash victims "just in time".

I would say that, from 1973 to now, I have had only 2 or 3 cars burn from the impact of a collision.

People, though, end up with a viewpoint of "I saw this happen so many times on TV, it must be based somewhere on truth, that a car will explode following a collision. Therefore, it MUST BE THE TRUTH that cars burn and explode when they are in an accident."

Must be a case of "perception" as opposed to "reality", which we all know is "what a concept!"

[Arctickat]

That falls along the same argument that seatbelt law opponents tried to use. If they crash more people will be killed because the seatbelt will jam and trap them in the burning car. :roll:

[Happiness]

All I can say is "No wonder people walk, run or drive by accidents"

[ERDoc]

Just to be clear, the "court documents" that you keep citing are the plaintiffs motions. You are basing your arguement on the statements of the plaintiff's attorney, an obvioulsy biased source (there is a reason the term for it is an arguement). You also provide references that refer to several other exhibits, which we do not have access to. It is difficult to substantiate or refute the validity without being able to view the evidence. So what if the plaintiff's attorney says that the defendant is "the type of person who is easily excited and prone to hysterics and over reactions." That is only his opinion. Prove it. If you can't, your arguement has no merit.

I will give you credit for finally getting something right, if we, as medical professionals had done something like this we would have been held accountable. We should be because we have the education and we are medical professionals. That holds us to a higher standard that the layperson, as it should. How do we know that, "Torti by her own admission knew better?" Do we know that because the plaintiff's attorney (who is looking to collect a big paycheck) says so? Again, there are references to other exhibits which we do not have access to. You are basing your agruement on the opinion of a biased attorney.

The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but bystander apathy lead to the death of Kitty Genovese. If one person steps up and tries to do the right thing, more power to them.

Also keep in mind that this "court document," is VanHorn's appeal. The case was originially settled in trial court in favor of Torti, finding that she was covered under the Emergency Medical Care Law of California. The appellate court said that Torti was not covered by the EMCL because she did not render medical care, but fell under the Good Samaritan Law, which provides less protection. The issue boils down to which law she is covered by. The state Supreme Court has decided that Torti is not covered by the GSL, but said nothing about the EMCL. Therefore, this case can go to a jury for damages (which I hope they will not be as blind as the California court system). I would agree with the trial court and think the appelate court and Supreme Court missed the boat on this one. So, of you are in California, keep some bandaids in your car. If you have to pull someone out, put a bandaid on them and you will then be providing medical care and will be protected more.