http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/BAUV14QQIS.DTL&tsp=1Bumbling Good Samaritan can be sued

(12-18) 17:43 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A Good Samaritan whose well-meaning but careless rescue effort injures an accident victim can be sued for damages, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court said California's shield against liability for emergency help applies only to people trying to provide medical help.

The 4-3 ruling allows a 27-year-old Los Angeles woman to go to trial in her suit against a friend who pulled her out of a wrecked car and, in the process, allegedly caused injuries that left her permanently paralyzed. The friend, Lisa Torti, said she had seen smoke and thought the car was about to explode, but other witnesses said they had seen no signs of danger.

The court majority said the law Torti cited to try to dismiss the lawsuit was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently. Dissenting justices said the ruling would discourage people from trying to save lives.

The case dates from 2004, when a group of friends including Torti and Alexandra Van Horn left a bar in suburban Chatsworth (Los Angeles County) in two cars after a Halloween party.

The car in which Van Horn was a passenger went out of control and hit a light pole. Torti, in the other car, pulled Van Horn out just before emergency crews arrived to take her to the hospital, where she underwent surgery for a spinal cord injury and a lacerated liver.

Torti testified that she had carried her friend out carefully, with one arm under her legs and one behind her back. But Van Horn said Torti had grabbed her by the arm and yanked her out.

Other witnesses said Torti had set Van Horn down next to the car, despite Torti's testimony that she was worried the vehicle would blow up.

Torti sought to dismiss the suit under a 1980 state law that bars damage suits against anyone who "in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency" - even for negligent acts that injure the victim.

Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.What a heartwarming tale. Friend A (who is already stoned) also gets plastered and gets into a car with her drunk date, who promptly crashes into a pole. Friend B gets out of her car to try to pull A out of danger, and as thanks, A sues her, and the California Supreme Court gives A the green light, even though we have a supposed "Good Samaritan" law.

If you're dying on the streets of California, and no one comes to your aid, be sure to thank your local personal injury lawyer. They've set up a system where you can be punished for good behavior, but not for indifference.

Well, time to print up disclaimer forms and have people sign them before you try to help them. :\

Well, time to print up disclaimer forms and have people sign them before you try to help them. :\Nah, then they'll sue you, claiming you coerced them to sign.

No matter how you look at it, the only way NOT to get sued is to do nothing at all.

We need to legally tear down case law.

Cases like this should be treated as individual cases. Not automatically write fundamental legislation which affects everyone.

Of course trial lawyers and judges would never allow that. And will never happen. I don't know why, they would have more cases if it(precedence) were torn down.

And you would not have a point to post.

Neither would I.

If Stella pouring her hot coffee in her cooch, and her lawsuit only affected her, then no one would have a problem with her case.

We need to legally tear down case law.

Cases like this should be treated as individual cases. Not automatically write fundamental legislation which affects everyone.Yeah, let's reinvent the legal wheel every time, and make decisions arbitrary and capricious, dependent on the mood of the judge or jury that day.

Another great libertarian idea. You should publish a book, entitled "All the Laws We Should NOT Enact".

What we really need is precedent that makes sense. One that works for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the bank accounts of a tiny minority of personal injury lawyers.

That is the title of the book. Nailed it right on the head. We don't need any more laws. Any more than we need any more roads. We have all the roads we need. Same with laws.

Ya, as an INDIVIDUAL case. If you are drunk and paralyze someone because you don't know what you are doing, you should pay. Should not have a single effect on anyone else.

Your assessment of the precedent is precisely correct. It WILL cause people to let people die. Lots lots more than if you treated the case individually.



I actually had a nightmare last night about this very subject. Woke my ass up, with a cold sweat. Even I, with the training and experience that I have to save lives in the environment that I am in, I have absolutely none in extricating injured(with suspected spinal cord injuries) people from a car accident. Of course in my dream, I went all Dr. David Banner and was able to lift the car off of the injured, but even my subconscious knew that I could not help in a real sense.

You are correct, this will send a chilling effect if she has to pay. Not just with laypeople, but with professional medical people as well. I don't know of very many nurses trained with extricating spinal cord injuries from vehicles, I know of no docs either. And we are not limited by liability with Good Samaritan laws in the first place.

What it means is that there will be more nurses and doctors who will just drive by car accidents, with the thinking, "I will see you when ICU." And lots more people will die because of it. That is what this case law means, the trial lawyers and trial judges will NOT take that into consideration when they write this case law, if the plaintiff wins.

Again, if the plaintiff wins this, it will cause a chilling effect which will cost more injuries, more paralysis, more deaths.

That is the title of the book. Nailed it right on the head. We don't need any more laws. Any more than we need any more roads. We have all the roads we need. Same with laws.Another silly libertarian notion. As situations change, so must laws change. The problem we have is not that we make new laws, but that we fail to repeal the old ones that no longer make sense.Ya, as an INDIVIDUAL case. If you are drunk and paralyze someone because you don't know what you are doing, you should pay. Should not have a single effect on anyone else.Without precedent, how people know how to act in the future? If their fates are to be decided by arbitrary standards, they might as well be living in a state of totalitarianism.You are correct, this will send a chilling effect if she has to pay.She doesn't even have to win. In America, we don't have a loser pays system, so the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough. The defense costs of a personal injury lawsuit through trial can easily bankrupt the average American. And when they win, they're still stuck with the lawyer's bill.

What it means is that there will be more nurses and doctors who will just drive by car accidents, with the thinking, "I will see you when ICU."Exactly. In the ICU, you make money hand over fist, so you'll treat people despite the lawsuits, and buy insurance to pay for them.

No one is going to buy "Good Samaritan" insurance.

I don't.

I make what a floor nurse makes.


If you mean ICU in general. It costs more because it is more intensive. There are more people treating each patient than the floor or ER. More equipment with commensurate costs involved. And ICU bed wholesales, on the cheap side, for 100K per each. Constant monitoring equipment with back up. I have to tip foley bags every single hour and document I's and O's. And deliver meds on time. And clean up C Diff stool running over the bed onto the floor. Monitor wounds and fecal management systems. Titrate hemodynamic drugs for effect. Sedate patients for effect. Suction airways an cleanse oral every hour. Change trachs cannulas. Titrate O2. And provide ACLS or PALS if a patient's heart stops. Measure ventrics output, monitor mental status. And turn 400ibs patients(all patients) every 2 hours.

OR is more expensive than ICU, of course. Because usually it is more intensive than ICU. More people involved in a shorter period of time, and surgeons need to get paid for their knowledge and procedures. And the devices are are more expensive to the hospital or doc.

The companies which make titanium hips charge a lot in parts cost. The parts cost is expensive. But you can figure that half of all of the parts cost is lawyers and insurance costs. And testing and R&D. A 65K titanium hip does not REALLY cost that much to make. More than half is lawsuit prevention and past lawsuit costs, even before it comes to the OR.

But to tell you the truth.

Thousands of Californians, per year, will never make it to the ICU to cost you a single dime, if this plaintiff wins.

They will die in the field.

You are correct with that assessment.'


This case law WILL SAVE YOU MONEY, in the long run.


Never mind that it might be your grandma or mom, upside down in a car on her way to an Indian Casino, who got broadsided. She will die, if this plaintiff wins. If this case law is enacted.

No one will touch her.

If you mean ICU in general. It costs more because it is more intensive. There are more people treating each patient than the floor or ER. More equipment with commensurate costs involved.And since you price in a profit at each step, it's logical to conclude that you make more money from ICU patients than you do from regular patients (and even more money from OR patients).

Unless you're claiming that the ICU is a losing venture, that you make up for by profits from Government-subsidized fat people. In which case I wonder why you run an ICU at all, since I doubt your hospital's administrators are just good white Christians trying to help their neighbor.A 65K titanium hip does not REALLY cost that much to make. More than half is lawsuit prevention and past lawsuit costs, even before it comes to the OR.Do you sell it to the patient at the wholesale cost?

Thousands of Californians, per year, will never make it to the ICU to cost you a single dime, if this plaintiff wins.

They will die in the field.Consider them martyrs for the tort reform cause.

Once the relative of a Senator or some blond-haired, blue-eyed girl dies as a result of this, people will finally wake up and get serious about tort reform.

And since you price in a profit at each step, it's logical to conclude that you make more money from ICU patients than you do from regular patients (and even more money from OR patients).
I don't. I work at two hospitals. At one we get paid Medicare rate for most of our patients, it is currently at a negotiation standstill with Blue Cross and don't take their patients. At the other, the less we do the more money the hospital makes.

Unless you're claiming that the ICU is a losing venture, that you make up for by profits from Government-subsidized fat people.
At one, the hospital is losing money, they are in the red. Just laid off 44 people because of it. At the other, it is more solvent than any bank or car company you know of.

In which case I wonder why you run an ICU at all, since I doubt your hospital's administrators are just good white Christians trying to help their neighbor.
Hospitals are a business. When did you ever get the idea that they were not? CHW is owned by the Catholic Church. There is a Methodist hospital in South Sac. I don't know otherwise what Christianity has to do with it.

I am not a Christian. You want my service, you must pay me for it. I don't expect less from you and whatever YOU do.

Do you sell it to the patient at the wholesale cost?
I suppose if everyone paid their bill, and everyone got paid for doing their work, that yes, that could happen.

But why. Name any other business which sells its parts for parts cost.

I can't think of one. I doubt you do, or your employer does.

Consider them martyrs for the tort reform cause.

Once the relative of a Senator or some blond-haired, blue-eyed girl dies as a result of this, people will finally wake up and get serious about tort reform.

I thought Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were lesbians.

Do they even have blond haired daughters?

Couldn't allowing this case to go to trial potentially create a stronger precedent in the right direction?

What is the stronger precedent.

That drunk laypeople need to have the complete understanding of how to extricate spinal cord injured people from cars after an accident?

Is that what you want to subscribe to.


I have told you that people who are even trained at saving people's lives in general, don't know how to do that. I don't know how to do it. I even had a dream last night, subconsciously, telling me I don't know how to do it.

I can do tons of things to save your life. And your mental capacity. Your quality of life.

But pulling you out of a car wreck? Nope. I don't have that. Honestly, even though we professional medical practitioners are not held to the same Good Sam laws as laypeople, if our lawyers can convince a jury that any intended or wished interventions are beyond our scope of practice, our duty by law becomes that of a layperson.

If I arrive on the scene, I will wait for trained extricating personnel, to remove you. If you suffer more injuries while waiting, or if the car explodes while waiting, you will die.

You will fVcking die.

I'm saying that by allowing the case to go to trial, provided that it ends in favor of the woman that pulled her friend from the car, couldn't that establish precedent for Good Samaritan laws to be interpreted broadly instead of narrowly?

aybe not. I was just thinking of how, for example, the RIAA drops lawsuits that they think they're about to lose in an effort to avoid precedents that are unfavorable to them being set.

I'm saying that by allowing the case to go to trial, provided that it ends in favor of the woman that pulled her friend from the car, couldn't that establish precedent for Good Samaritan laws to be interpreted broadly instead of narrowly?The California Supreme Court, which has the last say in the matter, has already spoken, and every trial court and lower appellate court is now bound to follow it.

Whether this particular person now wins or loses the lawsuit is irrelevant to everyone else. All I care about is the precedent that has been set down, that I can be sued if I decide to be a "Good Samaritan".

At one, the hospital is losing money, they are in the red. Just laid off 44 people because of it. At the other, it is more solvent than any bank or car company you know of.I don't mean "profit" in the technical accounting sense. I mean personal profit. Just because the hospital is now running at a loss, does that mean that the administrators don't get their paycheck?Hospitals are a business. When did you ever get the idea that they were not?I didn't. I said that because they're a business, set up to make money fixing people, the more broken the person is, the more money they're going to make (personally) fixing him.But why. Name any other business which sells its parts for parts cost.Sony sells one of its parts for below cost.

But that's besides the point. My point was that because you make profit at each transaction, the more transactions there are, the more money you make.

that I can be sued if I decide to be a "Good Samaritan".

We all know what happened to the Good Samaritan, right?

I don't mean "profit" in the technical accounting sense. I mean personal profit. Just because the hospital is now running at a loss, does that mean that the administrators don't get their paycheck? I didn't. Wages are not profit.

That notion is just stupid.

I said that because they're a business, set up to make money fixing people, the more broken the person is, the more money they're going to make (personally) fixing him.Sony sells one of its parts for below cost. Generally speaking, the costs are covered. As any good business or organization must be run.

Sony sold TVs in the US below cost to drive American TV manufacturers out of business in the long run. There were riots in Japan from Japanese housewives because they were subsidizing that loss leader paying 4 times what we were paying here for TVs in the 60s and 70s. I don't know what effect that had in Japan. But there are NO more TV manufacturers in America because of Sony's actions. Is that good or bad?

Quasar.
Zenith.
Curtis Mathis.
RCA.
All gone.

But that's besides the point No, it is not. That is a very good point. Loss leaders are sold for a reason.

Walmart PAYS you to take Clorox and and Downy off the shelf. They sell those things to you at half the cost that they pay, so that you buy their more profitable things while you are there. That is no secret. In the end, WalMart only makes 9 cents for every dollar it spends running its business.

. My point was that because you make profit at each transaction, the more transactions there are, the more money you make. If people don't pay on 9 out of 10 transactions. A business must make it up on that tenth transaction. Otherwise the business goes out of business, and 10 out of 10 of those people will have no place to go to for the service they want. The cost is distributed, just like in Castro's Cuba to everyone eventually, which is what you want. Isn't it?

The difference is that that the expectation of service level is higher in the US than Cuba. American patients and their families, and their lawyers expect more, and demand more. That costs more money, no matter what Michael Moore has told you.

If a Farmers Market apple vendor has 9 out of his 10 apples stolen, without being paid for, he will have to charge that 10th person for the cost of all 10. If he does not, he will go out of business. And no apples will be available to anyone.

But now that 10th person who paid full price for all 10 apples, gets to pass the price on to the other 9, in terms of taxes and insurance. It all gets redistributed out. Which makes it totally socialized and communally shared, essentially. Which is what you want, isn't it? Well, aside from the 45 million Americans who don't pay insurance. They get a ride, and are part of the 9.

Wages are not profit.

That notion is just stupid.I know that. You are not listening.If people don't pay on 9 out of 10 transactions. A business must make it up on that tenth transaction.Fine. But when it comes to that 10th transaction, you will make more money if it involves 100 sub-transactions as opposed to 10.

You keep repeating the same story, as though I don't understand socialism. I do. It's not my point, at all.

By the way, I don't like our socialist system one bit. It sucks badly.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/BAUV14QQIS.DTL&tsp=1What a heartwarming tale. Friend A (who is already stoned) also gets plastered and gets into a car with her drunk date, who promptly crashes into a pole. Friend B gets out of her car to try to pull A out of danger, and as thanks, A sues her, and the California Supreme Court gives A the green light, even though we have a supposed "Good Samaritan" law.

If you're dying on the streets of California, and no one comes to your aid, be sure to thank your local personal injury lawyer. They've set up a system where you can be punished for good behavior, but not for indifference.

When performing a rescue, you must do so with a reasonable degree of care.

California hasn't "set up" anything. That's been the common law in the United States for a long time. Certain states have enacted various forms of good samaritan laws, but the common law has long been a standard of reasonable care. Whether or not the individual in question used reasonable care is beyond our ken, given the information provided. If he did, he won't lose.

I thought Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were lesbians.

Do they even have blond haired daughters?

California has has tort reform for years now.

All its done is make the insurance companies wealthier and limit individual protection.

In fact, studies across the nation are showing that tort reform has a neglegible effect on anything.

What is the stronger precedent.

That drunk laypeople need to have the complete understanding of how to extricate spinal cord injured people from cars after an accident?

Is that what you want to subscribe to.


I have told you that people who are even trained at saving people's lives in general, don't know how to do that. I don't know how to do it. I even had a dream last night, subconsciously, telling me I don't know how to do it.

I can do tons of things to save your life. And your mental capacity. Your quality of life.

But pulling you out of a car wreck? Nope. I don't have that. Honestly, even though we professional medical practitioners are not held to the same Good Sam laws as laypeople, if our lawyers can convince a jury that any intended or wished interventions are beyond our scope of practice, our duty by law becomes that of a layperson.

If I arrive on the scene, I will wait for trained extricating personnel, to remove you. If you suffer more injuries while waiting, or if the car explodes while waiting, you will die.

You will fVcking die.

I'm sorry, but unless the car is about to explode or some other grave imminent risk is present, you shouldn't be attempting to extricate someone from a car if you do not have the training and/or equipment necessary.

If there is an immediate risk, then you don't have to worry much about being deemed unreasonable.

When performing a rescue, you must do so with a reasonable degree of care.Yes, that rule does pay your bills.

But understand the consequences: if I'm not getting paid to rescue you and I don't have specific insurance to cover the lawyer tax, I'm just not going to do it.

Why should I gamble my life savings, when I don't know you, and I probably wouldn't even like you if I did know you?

The more crazy cases like this that there are, the more the general public is going to come to this inevitable conclusion. Saving someone used to be a question of the physical risk to you, and it's increasingly becoming a question of the financial risk.

So when you're in an accident, or drowning, or stuck, or need anyone around to lift a finger to help you, don't be surprised when they don't. I won't. I won't even dial 911, as you might sue me for dialing too slowly. Who knows what personal injury lawyers will come up with next to make a quick buck.

California hasn't "set up" anything. That's been the common law in the United States for a long time.What are you talking about? These rules have been set up by California courts (lawyers) and the California legislature (again, mostly lawyers).

Rules made by lawyers, for the express (financial) benefit of lawyers.

We are not bound by some nebulous national "common law". The California Supreme Court could have easily applied the Good Samaritan law to this situation, if it wanted to.

Really is a shame about this case really, I do have some exprience in an incident similar to this, around 1998, when I was in the task force off duty and rolled up on a wreck going home.

quote"When performing a rescue, you must do so with a reasonable degree of care."

I agree with Aidon on this. Some basic first aid knowledge they tell you and train you about neck injuries is the first thing is with potential neck and back injuries you do not move the victim unless their is life threatening conditions. The only precedent I forsee this particular case is intoxicated people obviously lack judgement, so, I doubt, this will effect Good Samaritan Laws and similar legislation. But, unfortunately yes, it is almost better to just walk the other way than help out those that are seriously injured nowadays, to much liability.

y incident I spoke of earlier briefly, involved a "small" commercial truck and a young mother and a fairly blind corner, near where I lived at the time. It had alot of accidents there, so, it was fairly common to see me running around with a first aid kit there, since I lived nearby. But, anyways. Normally, the accidents there take place around the blind corner, this one was the first I had seen where it was the straight stretch someone had pulled out in front of the commercial truck mentioned, and got their vehicle thrown into a field on the other side of the road rather badly and hard. I arrived about 1 minute after the incident happened.

Noticing that it was a truck versus a small car, with the truck winning, Naturally, I go in to look at the small car first. The young woman, child in the back seat, is fairly hysterical, get her to calm down, check her out, got a big knot on her head, slightly cut, then, I have her go lay down, she was fine figuratively. Another woman arrived and I told her to keep the driver occupied while I check out the kid, The young toddler, then, starts to cry while buckled into his car seat, and the mother starts to shout for omg my baby and such, last thing I need is someone to go touching a child and such. I begin checking out the child, going through my basic list of things to do in order to evaluate what is wrong with the child, from my many, many first aid classes from both the Army and the task force. The child basically crying, ok, breathing responsive yada yada, is not bleeding, yada, yada, when I notice the base of the kiddos neck is not where it is supposed to be.

Bingo, That kid is going nowhere. I try to get the kiddo to atleast move some lower extremities on his own. But, he is young and crying, in a severe amount of pain so no dice. So, I send my girlfriend down to a store nearby for some ice, while awaiting medics and such. You know, ice down the kids neck, reduce the risk of swelling and have some chance to regain lower movement with some surgery and stuff you can do without moving the child and further injuring him. With another lady arriving I say, I need to go check the driver of the truck, the kid is not fine, but, he will live, and I tell her do not let anyone touch or move that child.

So, I go check the driver of the truck, allittle shaken up but, just fine and dandy. So, I head back to the kiddo. As I get there, I notice some dumb bitch had taken the child out of his restraints and was cradling the child in her arms and was saying he stopped crying, I think he is fine. You can only imagine how livid I am at this point. I ask why did you move the child, but, not in those words though, I told you not to. She said well the car was smoking. The car wasn't smoking. it was powder from the airbags. To stop the rest of the story at that point, the child, is now paralyzed from the neck down.

Very tragic story.

Well, not to defend stupid people but probably most people don't know that moving someone with a spine injury is really bad. They probably don't even think about it with the adrenaline pumping and so on.

Hindsight is 20/20 but maybe a word or two about why you don't want to pick up the kid. "He looks like he has a neck injury and if you move him you risk making him permanently paralyzed", would have worked then leave her there to make sure no one touches or moves him until the paramedics arrive.

If he did, he won't lose.

I have discovered that Philipinos routinely mix up their genders when talking of others.

I don't suppose you are Philipino, so I must assume that you did not even read the article.

California has has tort reform for years now.
Who is discussing tort reform?
We are discussing how case law can have a chilling effect on people and society. And that cost.

You have the wrong topic.

All its done is make the insurance companies wealthier and limit individual protection.
I would bet that the defendant does not have insurance for this.
I don't.

Everyone knows that trial lawyers and insurance companies are in cohoots. More lawsuits, the more the need for insurance. The more insurance, the more lawsuits.

In fact, studies across the nation are showing that tort reform has a neglegible effect on anything.
What tort reform?

Exactly!

Yes, that rule does pay your bills.

But understand the consequences: if I'm not getting paid to rescue you and I don't have specific insurance to cover the lawyer tax, I'm just not going to do it.

Why should I gamble my life savings, when I don't know you, and I probably wouldn't even like you if I did know you?

The more crazy cases like this that there are, the more the general public is going to come to this inevitable conclusion. Saving someone used to be a question of the physical risk to you, and it's increasingly becoming a question of the financial risk.

So when you're in an accident, or drowning, or stuck, or need anyone around to lift a finger to help you, don't be surprised when they don't. I won't. I won't even dial 911, as you might sue me for dialing too slowly. Who knows what personal injury lawyers will come up with next to make a quick buck.


Then, I presume you would agree with the converse...any implementation of a good samaritan law exculpating a rescuer from any standard of care would also mandate attempts to rescue when a person can do so without any great risk to their own safety? Since your concern is to incentivize rescue attempts...

What are you talking about? These rules have been set up by California courts (lawyers) and the California legislature (again, mostly lawyers).

Rules made by lawyers, for the express (financial) benefit of lawyers.

We are not bound by some nebulous national "common law". The California Supreme Court could have easily applied the Good Samaritan law to this situation, if it wanted to.


The Good Samaritan law in California was intended to divest medical and rescue personnel who perform emergency medical and rescue procedures outside the scope of their performance from a certain standard of care. The California Supreme Court neglected to expand that law beyond what they felt was the legislative intent. Barring legislation to the contrary, the common law in most (if not all) states is the long standing reasonable care standard on behalf of rescuers.

Very tragic story.

Well, not to defend stupid people but probably most people don't know that moving someone with a spine injury is really bad. They probably don't even think about it with the adrenaline pumping and so on.

Hindsight is 20/20 but maybe a word or two about why you don't want to pick up the kid. "He looks like he has a neck injury and if you move him you risk making him permanently paralyzed", would have worked then leave her there to make sure no one touches or moves him until the paramedics arrive.


That's why the standard is a "reasonable man" standard. If most people don't know that moving someone who might have a spine injury is a bad idea, then doing so isn't unreasonable. Its a question for a jury.

What we don't need is a bunch of yahoos who think they are going to be heros and get their 15 minutes of fame approaching accident scenes and doing something really stupid which exacerbates the damage.

I can just imagine somebody deciding that he isn't going to wait for the rescue squad with the jaws of life, because he has a propane torch in the back of his pickup which will cut that lady out just fine...and he's a maverick, by gosh!

According to Tudamorf and Fy'yr, the poor lady who now has severe burn scars over much of her body due to the resulting debacle should have no recourse...because the guy was trying to rescue her.

Then, I presume you would agree with the converse...any implementation of a good samaritan law exculpating a rescuer from any standard of care would also mandate attempts to rescue when a person can do so without any great risk to their own safety?That doesn't follow at all. And it violates the Thirteenth Amendment (not that Vermont or Minnesota seem to care).Since your concern is to incentivize rescue attempts...That's not my concern at all. My concern is that people shouldn't be unfairly punished if they choose to aid someone in distress.

That's why the standard is a "reasonable man" standard. If most people don't know that moving someone who might have a spine injury is a bad idea, then doing so isn't unreasonable. Its a question for a jury."Question for the jury" = "lawyers make a lot of money". Which is why lawyers love to send questions to the jury.

And if you win the case against the asshole who sued you for rescuing him, who's going to pay your $250,000 in legal fees, time lost from work, stress, and so on?

You lose the minute the complaint is filed, no matter what.

According to Tudamorf and Fy'yr, the poor lady who now has severe burn scars over much of her body due to the resulting debacle should have no recourse...because the guy was trying to rescue her.
You misunderstand completely my points.(Its like you are not even reading them.)

Just as you misunderstand Good Samaritan laws in CA, and what they are for, and who they apply to.



If people are punished for attempting to help people, they will stop helping.

Your lady, will die in the truck because of it. That is human nature, and has nothing to do with your made up common law either. Or tort reform, or anything else that you are trying to bring to the discussion.

How can you debate me, or proceed to paraphrase what is according to me, when you don't even read my posts. Or do you read them, and just don't understand them??