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