Good samaritan can be sued

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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."

---

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).

---

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.

---

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

---