I don't see this as a problem.

In this case the 'rescuer' was burdened by a common misunderstanding promoted by the media that cars that crash tend to explode in flames. Fifty years of movies and TV shows feature this as a plot device. Car crashes in a movie it is almost always on fire and about to explode. In real life most don't catch fire and those that do don't tend to explode.

The rescuer should have simply turned off the ignition and waited for the EMTs to roll up with a back board and cervical collar. As it was they reenacted what they saw n TV and this compromised the driver's spine.

Bottom line here is you have to know something to act. Outside a clear and immediate threat to the victims life and limb they should have not moved them.

Several states have enacted 'Good Samaritan' laws. These protect the person who attempts to help. But the protection is not unlimited. A common standard is that actions should comply with what an average person would consider reasonable and risks taken with the life and limb of the victim should be proportional to the risk of inaction.

In this case if the car had been actively on fire so that the fire presented a greater risk to life and limb than moving the victim without a backboard and collar it would have been justified. As it is rescuer played the hero without knowing, or even considering, the risk and the person was injured.

Bottom line here is that you have to know your limitations and act in a reasonable and conscientious manner based on the situation. Not playing the hero and taking risks with other people's lives based on what you see on TV.

Ignorance, and watching too much TV, is always a limiting factor in what anyone can or should do.