The term "first responder" is normally used when referring to EMS/Fire/Police trained individuals, in this case it seems to be referring to the person on the scene who was technically, the first to respond.

Whether there was intent to harm wasn't the question, whether the would-be "rescuer" was negligent was and is the question.

No one claimed that she was intending to harm the victim.

As for the mythical fire, she claimed it was the reason why she did what she did, everyone else there claimed that they didn't see anything like what the "rescuer" saw, in addition, she pulled the victim out of an allegedly burning car and then dropped her onto the ground next to the car, not exactly the actions of someone worried about either an imminent fire or explosion, or so held the court.

As for making a duty to respond law, that only opens up another can of worms.

There doesn't need to be intent in a case of negligence, intent is again, a whole nuther case of worms.

All the court did so far was give the victim in this case the right to continue her law suit against her would-be rescuer and the driver of the vehicle she was riding in. They didn't find in her favor in regards to the liability or culpability of the would be rescuer. If they find that the would-be rescuer acted negligently, I would hope that they will find in the favor of the plaintiff, just as I would if any of my friends or family were injured due to someone's negligence.

I would only add that no one is claiming that anyone who stops at an accident scene is automatically liable for any injuries suffered in their attempts to rescue someone, what the court held is that a person attempts to help and is negligent in their actions, that they can be held accountable. If you're unsure if whether your actions will help or not or if you don't know what you're doing, don't take action. I'm not referring to you specifically here Russ.

JohnE