"a better course of action for the girl who did the negligent rescuing would have been to do nothing,"

Perhaps that is actually true! I certainly don't want to discourage good samaritans. Nor do I want them to be immune from suit if the totally fail to use common sense.

Several years ago I was first on the scene of an overturned jeep with a young girl pinned upside down in the inverted jeep. Hot fluids and "steam" all around. I crawled under the vehicle, protected her from the dripping fluids with my back, and stabilized her C-spine with a knee to either side of her head/neck. I prevented her from trying to drag herself out, which she couldn't have done anyway. While waiting for EMS, my biggest challenge came from another samaritan jumping up and down and hollering "it's going to blow..." and trying to drag us both out by the feet. Reason did not prevail with this samaritan, who would have dragged this severely injured girl (she turned out to have spinal fractures, fractured pelvis, ruptured spleen) out of the wreck doing untold harm. What prevailed was my wife's aggressive intervention removing the samaritan from the scene.

So I think I used good common sense, and couldn't have lived with myself if I hadn't tried to help. I also think that the other samaritan would have deserved a law suit. Heck if I'd been standing by instead of stuffed under the mess, that samaritan would have been the next case for the EMS folks.

I'm curious, isn't the court room where we want things like negligence to be determined? If it isn't, where should it be determined?

Again, read the entire story, read about the non-existent fire and the fact that in this one specific case, it was determined that the victim is allowed to sue due to her "friend's" negligence before making any decisions about whether or not you're going to help someone at the scene of an accident, no matter where you live.

JohnE

I did read the whole thing. Regardless of the fire that didn't exist, the first responder has seconds to make a decision; a court (lawyers, judge, jury) has all the time in the world to deliberate whether or not that split second decision meets their definition of common sense or negligence. I don't like being second guessed by people who didn't see what I saw.

Primary point being that since perhaps one of the best things to do is nothing and it is perfectly legal to do nothing, it will take open flame and an empty fire extinguisher to get me doing more. Assuming I'm not culpable for the accident, I can live with doing nothing, particularly when it's been determined by a court that doing more than nothing may be negligent.

If you are an EMT, a MFR, or a Paramedic, doing nothing may very well get you into more trouble depending on the laws in your area/state. Many states have a "duty to act" statute.

The case in question didn't involve a "first responder", it involved a passenger in a car that was following the car that crashed who apparently acted negligently. It also involved alcohol use by both the driver of the crashed car as well as the alleged rescuer.

Anyone in the EMS field is or should be aware that any action they take or don't take for that matter, is subject to review and action by a court at a later time, I know I was made very aware of that when I was in EMT school.

And lastly, you certainly are entitled to your opinion but when you write "regardless of the fire that didn't exist..." you're omitting one of the major factors in this particular case, the person in question made the claim of an imminent fire to justify her negligent act, if I or anyone else did that, I'd expect to be found liable for any negligence on my part. Lying about why she did what she did is what the court looked at. You can't simply ignore that fact, well I guess you can if you want but it seems kinda strange to do so.

Does the term "first responder" refer only to professional EMT/MFR/Paramedics or does it refer to the first person who responds and tries to assist? I used the term to refer to the first person to the scene, not to the first professional to the scene who may be too late. That said, I'm not one of the above trained professionals. I'm just a Joe Citizen who has now been told by this case law (precedent) that "rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals" and that doing nothing is both in my self interest and may in fact be the best course of action for the victim. Hence, my decision to do nothing.

Regarding your second point, did she make the claim of an imminent fire to justify her negligent act, or did she actually believe a fire was imminent? (Probable? Possible? Where is the line drawn?) This is why I don't care to be second-guessed by a jury who wasn't there.

California can remedy this by changing the law such that there is a duty to respond and then protect the responder from legal action (professional or not) unless it can be shown that he/she intentionally harmed the victim. There was no intent to harm on the part of the rescuer-wannabe, just bad judgment and perhaps seeing a danger that didn't exist.

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

I'm referring to me specifically. What I read here is that Joe Citizen can now be sued for trying to help. By not getting involved at all, I'm not subject to lawsuit. Do the math.

Then do not go into law enforcement.
In the millisecond you have to decide to pull the trigger (god forbid you should have to), you have made a decision for hundreds or thousands to judge at their leisure. They get to decide and move on, you get to live with it for the rest of your life.

The significant holding in this case was a new distinction drawn by the court between "rescue" and purely "medical" aid, rendered at the scene of an emergency by voluntary, lay first responders. The former is now excluded, bit the latter remains within the scope of the protection from civil liability provided by California's "Good Samaritan" statute. In my judgment, this is a distinction without a difference. The particular facts of the case at issue are not material to the court's holding.

Let's take the hypothetical case of a drowning woman rescued from the water and resuscitated by a boater. She suffers broken ribs which, in turn, lacerate her internal organs. She sues the boater for these injuries, alleging specifically that her ribs were broken by the boater when he negligently dragged her limp, unconscious body too abruptly and forcefully over the gunwale and into his boat by her arm.

Why does she plead these fact so specifically? Because she knows the boater will claim her ribs broke while he was performing CPR on her, which is a known risk of even correctly performed CPR. Why does this matter?

Because, under the California Supreme Court's new interpretation of the state's "Good Samaritan" law, she must show that her injury was caused by a negligent "rescue" from the water, and not during CPR, which is clearly "medical" aid. Otherwise, the boater has legal immunity from her claim for damages, and her suit will be dismissed.

The problem, for the trial courts and juries, is separating rescue from medical aid. Often, they are essentially part and parcel of the same, often chaotic and certainly stressful, event. How can they tell exactly when, during the emergency, the drowning woman's ribs were broken? The answer is, they can't.

Suppose a man is crushed and trapped in a building collapse. Debris is pressing on his chest, and this pressure is obviously restricting his breathing. You remove the debris, freeing him, and restoring his ability breathe freely, but this also allows a crushed, compressed artery in his pelvis to begin bleeding internally, and he soon expires. Was this a rescue, or medical aid? Freeing him from the debris clearly constitutes a rescue, his widow will argue. But your intent was solely to enable him to breathe, and that surely constitutes aid for a medical emergency, you will reply. Are you protected by the Good Samaritan law, or not?

See the problem?

Jeff

No chance of that happening; I'm a little past the age limit.

Look, I know my limits and have my share of common sense. I definitely know enough to not move an accident victim if there is no exigent rationale.

Sure, this lady may deserve to be sued for making a bad situation worse, but what it means is that a person who does everything right can now be sued too. The plaintiff may not succeed in their lawsuit, but now that the door is open, lawyers will respond. I'd rather not unnecessarily open myself up to that.

Does it mean I won't help at all? Don't know, situation will dictate; but I'll be much less inclined to assist knowing that I could end up in court justifying my actions.