But the major issue is that if you aren't providing medical care in an emergency, you need to exercise due care and not break someone's back rescuing them from a wrecked car. Whether our Good Samaritan did the damage is the subject of dispute, so that will go to trial.
+1, and an apparently minority view that the CA court basically got it right; you have to know what you are doing before you try to remove someone from a (apparently) non-burning car. Also, if you render emergency medical aid. Most, if not all, of the members of this forum know what they are doing.
I have EMT training and certification. Major emphasis in training was careful removal (how and why) of injured people from a car wreck. A while after, I saw a car flip and go off the road, ending upside down. Of course, the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt. No fire. I was grabbing my kit, and shouting to bystanders not to move the driver, and was pushed aside while they dragged him out. Frankly, if he had been injured by their "rescue," I think they should have been sued and lost.
Our instructor also told us the story of someone who witnessed a heart attack, shouted "I know CPR" and attempted (failed attempt) to do CPR. Turns out they only saw it demonstrated on TV. No class, no certification. Apparently, there were others around who had been certified. . .
My understanding is that a Doctor's most important rule is "First, do no damage."
so, I think the CA court is ending up in sorta the right place.
Previous Topic
Index
