Well, that kinda bites. As a very general principle, I'm leery of laws that deny an injured party their "day in court" altogether. But this interpretation seems clearly against public interest, as well as possibly the broader intent of the legislature and previously established case law. The particular section where a statute is codified seems a mighty thin reed upon which to hang such an interpretation.

It seems to me that "rescue" and "emergency medical care" are rather vague and overlapping concepts, not easily distinguished. The court appears to have made a distinction where there is not much of a difference

Let's hope a jury does the right thing according to the facts of the case, and that the CA legislature moves quickly to restore the status quo ante and re-extend immunity to its proper and reasonable scope.