California Court: Good Samaritans can be sued

[Richard B the EMT]

For those who don't recall the Kitty Genovese case, follow this link...

http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lih...0,7944135.story

For those who want to hear a social commentary on this case, look up "A Small Circle Of Friends" by Phil Ochs, on Youtube.

[okeefeda]

I noticed a few comments that stuck out. First is that anyone can be sued and the misconception that the Good Samaritan Act (GSA) protects you from being sued. That second part is technically incorrect. The GSA protects medical professional like an EMT and in most states medically trained civilians providing first aid who are working within the scope of their training, and are knowlegable in their field of practice from being prosecuted or found liable for injury or death that results from medical treatment provided in good faith, unless there is sufficient evidence of gross negligence. Notice I said Gross negligence. (Some states like CA dropped the word Gross from their laws) Nothing to protect you from the lawsuit itself. An emergency extrication of a patient is a medical procedure that we all learned to do in Basic EMT. If this person was not an EMT I would venture to guess the judge saw sufficient evidence that the person was not medically qualified to perform an emergency extrication any more then she was trained to perform a tracheotomy with a ball point pen. That does not mean that the GSA won't still protect her. Although she did admit that she was attempting to perform medical care on the patient, She still has to be found negligent in her actions and the prosecutor has to show reasonable evidence that the act of pulling her out of the car was an act of gross negligence, and that this person knowingly performed a skill that was outside of her level of training. While an EMT has to work within their protocols, someone who is not in EMT might not know that this requires special training and would have been acting in good faith, and within their ability to save someone who was in apparent danger. Chances are a jury will find that the GSA applies depending on the way the California law is written. It is worth taking a deeper look at not only the laws in this case, but the case law in your state. I think they may find her negligent in her actions either way but will probably provide her with protection under the GSA all the same.

[WolfmanHarris]

Now is the Good Samaritan Act state or federal in the US? And does that make a difference in how we're discussing his? (if we all have different GSA's I mean.)

Here is the Ontario GSA act. It's a short law and pretty clear. No gross negliegence and no reasonable expectation of compensation = no liability, despite common law.

[okeefeda]

Now is the Good Samaritan Act state or federal in the US? And does that make a difference in how we're discussing his? (if we all have different GSA's I mean.)

Here is the Ontario GSA act. It's a short law and pretty clear. No gross negliegence and no reasonable expectation of compensation = no liability, despite common law.

It is a Federal Act however each state has their own legislation that defines the circumstances that a person is protected under the act.

[Arctickat]

The GSA protects medical professional like an EMT and in most states medically trained civilians providing first aid who are working within the scope of their training,

I thought that was the purpose of the Emergency Medical Services Act.

[ERDoc]

There is no prosecutor in this case. It is a civil case, not criminal. There is the plaintiff and the defendant. In California, you have the Emergency Medical Care Law (Health and Safety 1799.102), which states:

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.

You also have the Good Samaritan Law which states, 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.

[Arizonaffcep]

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.

In Arizona, the Good Sam laws are in effect for when someone gets sued. Basically, anyone for almost any reason these days can get sued over anything. Crappy, but true. It's there so that WHEN they get sued, it is dismissed if it meets the Good Sam statutes...from my understanding.

Now, should this friend have left her friend in the car? Probably-very doubtful it would have caught fire or exploded...things typically don't spontaneously ignite like that. The good news...I believe it's the "prosecutions" burden to prove the friend caused the injury-which I would think would be damn near impossible.

[Doczilla]

Regarding GSA laws, there are often separately written laws for those with medical training and those without. The key difference in the laws for those with medical training is that you can act only up to the level of your training and not beyond, therefore an EMT-Basic cannot perform a cricothyroidotomy with a ballpoint pen. Pulling a person from a vehicle is hardly a medical procedure. It is not defined procedure in any textbook, not billable as a procedure, and there is no "standard curriculum" on how to do it. (Yes, we train on this, but every instructor teaches it a different way, and most of them are not wrong) Even if there was, the layperson should not be expected to know it. Do most laypeople know that cars don't explode? Not if they watch TV, where every car explodes on impact. WE know that cars don't explode, which is why we would be held to a different standard of care than a lay person.

Okeefeda is right about the fact that anyone can be sued for anything, no matter what the law says, but the GSA gives the court guidance to dismiss the suit before it goes very far. It's not a prohibition on suing, just one that almost guarantees the suit won't go through. Many lawyers won't want to take a case that is guaranteed to fail, particularly if their fee is based on how much they win (what's 30% of 0?).

"Gross" negligence would be an act so unconscionable that a reasonable person would know it's the wrong thing to do. Placing a plastic bag over the head of a patient with difficulty breathing, for example. "Willful and wanton misconduct" would be shown by intentionally yanking the patient out in order to induce injury, smothering her with a pillow, or kicking the wrecked car down the embankment with someone still inside.

We've all seen some dumb shit done by laypeople with no medical training, but we've also seen a lot of folks get good care at the roadside, such as the off-duty EMT that tells the other bystanders NOT to pull the patient from the car, or the doctor and nurse on the plane who treat the chest pain prudently, or the ER doctor (myself) who happens upon a multiple vehicle wreck on the highway and performs triage and scene size-up. There are several dashcam videos of police officers being assaulted or shot, and the first person at their side that can radio their plight seems to usually be a bystander.

The reason that this court finding is problematic is that laypeople with no medical training will not know about it. Medical providers will. And the higher the level the medical provider, the less likely they will be willing to help, since their deeper pockets make an appetizing target. Good luck getting a doctor to help you out when your grandmother hits the floor in the grocery store. So the next time you're on an airplane and your child or mother suffers a medical emergency, and you ask for help and the flight attendant asks if there is a doctor or medical professional on board, without this guaranteed protection, who will raise their hand? Whose hands will you be in instead?

'zilla

[mrmeaner]

Since some seem to be able to find more specific details, had the defendant been charged with battery? Wouldn't that be almost a requirement to base a injury claim from a would be rescuer?

Also, ERDoc, your sarcasm is not lost on all.

[ERDoc]

Since some seem to be able to find more specific details, had the defendant been charged with battery? Wouldn't that be almost a requirement to base a injury claim from a would be rescuer?

Also, ERDoc, your sarcasm is not lost on all.

Not necessarily. The burden of proof required in a civil case is much lower than in a criminal case. Think OJ and his murder case. He was found not guilty on all criminal charges, but in his civil suit he lost a lot of money (theorticially). The burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. It helps to win the civil case if there has been a conviction in a criminal case.