. . .and all that will be decided in court where you will be paying a lawyer to defend your actions. If you had done nothing, you'd be home with no worries.

Reading your scenarios, I can see this effectively ending Good Samaritan actions other than pure first aid totally unrelated to rescue. If moving things or people is involved, then the rescue side of the argument kicks in and you lose protection. Too many gray areas.

I responded to traffic collisions for over thirty years, first as an "advanced first-aid'er," later as an EMT1. The times I was forced to remove a victim from a wrecked vehicle myself I can count on the fingers of one hand. I have set/crawled into/laid in a wrecked vehicle for well over thirty minutes, providing aid and attempting to keep a victim stabilized many many times, waiting for the ambulance and fireguys to arrive to do the actual removal. A first responder just doesn't need to remove anyone most of the time...

Second that.

The damn car better be gloriously afire or going over the cliff/waters edge. Otherwise, I am getting in as john doe and doing what must be done. Only change to my previous SOP is my new name. I have decided this, and infuriated my attorney. He doesn't have to live with my conscience, I do.

Since I do a lot of mileage annually, and since I am a paramedic, I've been the first person to come across a number of wrecks and render aid over the years. I always identify myself with "Hi, I'm Jeff, and I'm a paramedic . . ."

I've never volunteered my full name or department affiliation, and won't give it unless specifically asked by a law enforcement officer, which has never happened. Of course, I'm fairly well known in the local fire/rescue community as an instructor, lecturer and attorney. But my usual approach is to just give a brief verbal patient report to the first arriving medical responders, then quietly back get back into my car and leave.

Jeff

"...then quietly back get back into my car and leave..."

Smooth move...

A little off-topic, but what’s the thought on just calling 9-1-1 and asking the dispatcher, “The situation is …. What should I do?” Does that transfer any liability?

Jeff, you bring up some very good points, but isn't or rather wasn't the issue at hand the alleged negligence of the would-be rescuer? All the court has done is allowed a person that apparently tried to use the "good samaritan" laws to avoid liability to be sued.

In the case you describe, even if the person acted negligently they couldn't be sued if they used the "good samaritan" laws, the case we're talking about has changed that.

Not an attorney, just an EMT in California, not far from where the original incident took place.

As for the call 911 and let them take the liability, I don't think so, the person calling isn't required to act according to the demands or request of a 911 dispatcher. If they were required to act, I can see where they might be able to claim that the dispatcher gave negligent orders.



JohnE

John,
I think where we differ is that you see this ruling as just applying to this particular case involving this woman who dragged her friend from a wreck; that case has now been cleared to go to trial. I see this ruling as precedent that essentially erases the Good Samaritan law wrt all rescues. This ruling was from the CA Supreme Court so it applies much more broadly than just the case at hand. As a Joe Citizen, this tells me to not get involved at all. Since you're a professional you may have a different view.

As I think about this story there are a few things that come to my mind:

1. It would be horrible to see people become less willing to try and help someone in need.

2. The 'rescuer' was out of her mind moving her friend who couldn't move for herself. That just screams leave her in place and I am not even in the medical/EMT field. Isn't it just common sense to not move an injured person unless absolutely necessary? This business of the car being on fire doesn't hold water with me as the other witnesses reported there was none they saw.

3. I can't wrap my brain around why the injured friend is suing. Yes, she is paralyzed and that sucks massively, but winning this suit isn't going to unparalyze her. What is she actually seeking as a result of this suit?

I don't think this story will result in my being more or less willing to stop and help someone in need, but then again I know just enough to know to do nothing more than needs to be done until better trained professionals arrive.

See bleeding? Apply pressure. Person not breathing? Give CPR. Broken bone? Stabilize it if necessary otherwise leave it alone. Beyond that the victim needs to hope true rescue folks are on their way.

Well, for all we know, she was "out of her mind" cuz she'd been drinking. Otherwise, there IS a lot adrenaline after a wreck...

What is she seeking? Perhaps the money needed for the multiple medical bills in the future as her bedsores develop, fester, ooze and get debrided. Probably for loss of productivity (which I personally think is a crock of feces, but the court doesn't) by not being able to walk. For "pain and suffering" - though, if paralyzed, shouldn't their be minimal pain?

In short, I think people sue cuz it's better than trying to get on with your life and suck it up. It's like the lotto. I also find humor in people getting millions of dollar settlements, when the person losing will never make that much money anyway.