Good samaritan can be sued

[tazber]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 4:25pm

I don't know how I feel about this ruling.

But my first instinct (based on the incomplete info in the link) is that the person in the wreck is wrong to pursue this. Just because she *legally* can sue her rescuer doesn't mean she should. And the accident was her fault to begin with.


Link

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 4:36pm

I don't think it said the accident was her fault. But god, how awful.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 4:36pm

I read this article as well and thought, "Well, I guess I'll never go out of my way to help someone again."

I've saved two people from drowning and one from choking and one woman from being beaten by her husband on the street. I'm certified in CPR and First Aid, but if this is the way things are going, I'm not going to bother to get involved again.

It's a sad day when the victim turns her hero into a target.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 4:37pm

It's all about the money. There's little support for non-wealthy parapalegics (and many others who are disabled) in American society.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 4:40pm

So, she wants the guy who saved her to pay for her injuries?

It's like the story of that burgler who fell through a sky light, while breaking into a house, and sued the homeowners because he broke his leg.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 4:43pm

It depends on the insurance coverages involved as much as anything. Of course friends will sue each other for benefit of one or both if it's insurance companies that end up paying.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 5:11pm

First of all, the fact that you can bring a lawsuit doesn't mean you'll win. As the article said, the plaintiff will need to show that the attempted Samaritan didn't exercise due care.

Second, no matter how good someone's intentions are, if you really are responsible for paralyzing someone, there's a good argument to be made that you should be liable. This isn't a criminal trial - you don't need malice of any kind. For a tort, you just need negligence.

Third, as Yawper pointed out, this could all just be a ritual to get an insurance payout.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 5:18pm

I think everyone makes good points, but it does seem to be a lesson to put yourself before good intentions.

If it were just ritual, would it have been news, even on a slow news day?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 5:19pm

Considering she was in the passanger seat of the car, she should be suing the driver of the car.

The samaritan was in the car behind them when the accident happened.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 5:21pm

Yeah, why would the samaritan's insurance pay, even if she were to be found at fault? I don't think I have any sort of insurance that would credibly cover that. Or does this mean the driver's would have to pay?
Updated On: 12/20/08 at 05:21 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 5:29pm

Probably, "Oh I can't sue a friend! It's easier to blame someone I don't know, and who wasn't even responsible for the accident."

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 6:23pm

If it were just ritual, would it have been news, even on a slow news day?

Yes, journalists never take a non-issue and make it into a salacious story. They're known for their total incorruptible objectivity.

Also, even if your trial is a ritual for insurance purposes, you have to do it well and convince a judge and/or jury. Just saying.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 7:21pm

Well, regardless of that, the message is clear. Everyone moans about how people don't help each other anymore but then this happens.

I'm reminded of a thread discussing a story where a woman was raped in public and no one (passerbys)did anything to stop it.
The general consensus was that it was a sad reflection of our lack of compassion and our desensitization to violence in our everyday lives. (obviously meant in the general sense)

And here someone does aid the victim and gets punished for it
(even if not convicted, going through this and lawyer's fees are punishment).

[gertiecummings]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 7:29pm

Where the hell is the Good Samaritan law?!?!?!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 7:41pm

VERY good question!

Wiki says:
Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles such as consent, parental rights, and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in Good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia[2]. In many countries which use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 8:42pm

It states right in the article:

"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."

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/20/08 at 9:19pm

She had to be pulled from the car to give her medical aid.