No good deed goes unpunished...

[tomthirtysix]

LOS ANGELES – 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.

Absolutely incredible. I wonder, if given the chance to do it all again, if she would have just left her "friend" in the car to take her chances.

 

[jfields]

Does seem incredible Tom. Now the courts are challenging the Good Samaritan laws. I guess the dumbest are in charge.

 

[Shooter]

Amazing. People never cease to make my jaw drop.

 

[cigar smoke]

Unbelievable.....Looks like someone needs to make a fast buck to pay for the car she wrecked even if it was against the person who tried to save her life.
Now thats who you call a bitch with a capital C

Bob

 

[Ginseng]

Now thats who you call a bitch with a capital C

Bob

That's a new one on me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Wilkey

 

[MX]

I vote that they place the victim back in a car, ram her back into a light pole, and lever her there...

then lets hope it take a few days for some one to find her.


Tim

 

[SKYDIVNEKD]

Does it surprise anyone that the decision came out of a California Court?! :whistling: Truly sad. Michelle and I were just talking about this the other day. Her belief is that the "Good Samaritan" was safe from being sued! Not anymore. Truly sad!

Floyd T.

 

[tsmckenney]

Absolutely incredible. I wonder, if given the chance to do it all again, if she would have just left her "friend" in the car to take her chances.

It's a lose/lose. She would have gotten sued for leaving her there as well.

Does seem incredible Tom. Now the courts are challenging the Good Samaritan laws. I guess the dumbest are in charge.

Right, but they're either elected or appointed by those elected. Maybe the next 8 years will be better

 

[Dozerhead]

Here in Texas the law could have changed since then, but when I took a first aid course in college, but I seem to remember that people could be liable if gross negligence was used in the actual rescue attempt. This was about 8 years ago so I'll have to go back and look at my notes if I still have them. The stories I've seen about his ruling have been scant on details of the actual rescue, but either way, I kind of shocked by California ruling, too. I"v always been one of those who will stop and render aid (thankfully I've only had to do it twice), but it will definitely make think about it if there is ever a third.

I've heard of people attempting to sue those who've performed CPR on them because there ribs were broken in the process. I guess the fact that they were still alive was of little solace to them. I guess the people who filed these lawsuits would have rather been dead. :whistling:

 

[DesertRat]

. I guess the people who filed these lawsuits would have rather been dead. :whistling:

It's not that they would rather be dead; it's that a lawyer saw an opportunity to make a buck and convinced the car crash victim that they are not really hurting the person they are suing, (it's nothing personal) they are going after insurance money and since we all know everyone hates insurance companies it makes it easier to justify.

 

[Goldie]

Hind sight is 20/20 right? Guess she should have done the "right" thing and left her ass in the car.

 

[ChiTown_Huck]

Bottom line is the person said yes to the lawsuit. The lawyer may be low for going after this money, but this person is even lower for not excepting that they are ultimately responsible for their injury because they hit the pole. Personal responsibility continues to evaporate...

 

[Seanholio]

Does it surprise anyone that the decision came out of a California Court?! :whistling: Truly sad. Michelle and I were just talking about this the other day. Her belief is that the "Good Samaritan" was safe from being sued! Not anymore. Truly sad!

Floyd T.

The worst part is that California's Highest Court is setting precedents that will be used in future cases to further weaken the Good Samaritan laws, generally reducing the willingness of your average person to assist someone in need.

 

[uptown_isy]

Does it surprise anyone that the decision came out of a California Court?! :whistling: Truly sad. Michelle and I were just talking about this the other day. Her belief is that the "Good Samaritan" was safe from being sued! Not anymore. Truly sad!

Floyd T.

Floyd,

As you said, it's CA. It's like another country out there. But it's a sad state of affairs when someone is sued for helping. Makes you think about helping someone out.

 

[souldog]

The worst part is that California's Highest Court is setting precedents that will be used in future cases to further weaken the Good Samaritan laws, generally reducing the willingness of your average person to assist someone in need.

Yep. Which makes our PO's even MORE liable than the average Citizen! So, now when we pull a victim out of a burning car and accidentally dislocate their shoulder, my Department can be sued. Suing the Department, which has no drawn out MOU regarding "pulling victims from burning cars," can say, "We don't train our Officers to pull people from burning cars. He/She did that of their own volition." That in turn releases the Department from liability, and the lawyers are free to go after the Police Officer in a Civil Court.


God forbid if you put people in fucked up situations for a fucking living, and we act on saving human lives, because we're just gonna get our asses sued off anyways. :angry:

 

[PuroEsq]

I foresee the following in the not too distant future ...

SCENE

Passerby drives up on a greusome accident.

PASSERBY: "Oh my god there is a lady bleeding to death in that burning car"

PASSERBY: (approaches victim) "You OK?"

VICTIM: (wailing in pain as fire encroaches) "Pleaaaaaase help me!"

PASSERBY: "No problem, however I will need to you complete these waivers, making sure to sign on pages 2, 7, 15, and 22 and initial where indicated at pages 6, 13, 31, and 36"

VICTIM: (still wailing in pain, getting hotter) "Oh my God please help ... I cannot sign those my left arm is broken and the other is pinned"

PASSERBY: (backing up because fire is getting biger) "Ohhhhh ..... ahhhh .... Hmmmm ..... Well in that case I will call 911 for you. I am sure they will be here soon."

(BOOOOOOOM! Car explodes)

PASSERBY: "Whew that was close ... I almost got myself into a bad situation where I could have gotten sued."


SCENE ..

:sign: