I see the problem as the judicial drawing of a distinction between "rescue" and "medical care," and denial of the protection of CA's "Good Samaritan" law to "rescuers," not the particular facts of the case.

"Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion." She may well have acted negligently, but the jury will have to decide that.

The larger issues are whether there is really a meaningful difference between rescue and medical aid in an emergency, and whether this decision will have an undue chilling effect on the gratuitous rendition of emergency assistance to those in peril.