#159211 - 12/19/08 11:41 PM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: Doug_Ritter]
|
Veteran
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 1530
Loc: DFW, Texas
|
Well, that ties it up in a bow. All the good and nice folks need to leave California now, I am ready to push it off into the water.
_________________________
I do the things that I must, and really regret, are unfortunately necessary.
RIP OBG
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#159214 - 12/19/08 11:57 PM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: Jeff_M]
|
Veteran
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 1530
Loc: DFW, Texas
|
Well, that kinda bites. . . . and that the CA legislature moves quickly to restore the status quo ante and re-extend immunity to its proper and reasonable scope. . . .
I wasn't in CA nearly as long as I was in Law School (1 semester before ejecting) and I heard nothing but negative things about the legislature there. Something about the inability to pour something out of a boot I think. Jeff ya' kinda took off the EMS helmet and grabbed the briefcase there didn't ya' 
Edited by Desperado (12/20/08 02:53 AM)
_________________________
I do the things that I must, and really regret, are unfortunately necessary.
RIP OBG
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#159215 - 12/20/08 12:02 AM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: Desperado]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 3824
|
I still get pleading phone calls to evacuate horses. The couple who successfully sued me for depreciation of their 'show' horse because he acquired a scar during my rescue subsequently divorced, and sold Black Beauty for his killer price.
It reminds me of the commercial fishing boat I spent 72 hours without even hot coffee towing back to harbour. They complained about the slip I was manuevering them into. I immediately began taking them back out to sea, until their pleas and a direct order from a irate CO changed my mind.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#159218 - 12/20/08 12:27 AM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: Chris Kavanaugh]
|
Addict
Registered: 03/20/05
Posts: 410
|
People that sue their rescuers should have to have day-glo orange liscense plates to prevent any future attempts.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#159220 - 12/20/08 12:37 AM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: sodak]
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 390
Loc: CT
|
People that sue their rescuers should have to have day-glo orange liscense plates to prevent any future attempts. +1
_________________________
Improvise,
Utilize,
Realize.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#159222 - 12/20/08 12:51 AM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: UncleGoo]
|
Journeyman
Registered: 02/16/06
Posts: 64
|
Yeah this is just another case of no good deed going unpunished. Reminds me of an episode of The Practice where a man got sued for sexual harrassment cause he used cpr to save this womens life and then after court she starts chokeing again and he just looks at her like NO WAY.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#159224 - 12/20/08 12:57 AM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: Jeff_M]
|
Veteran
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 1530
Loc: DFW, Texas
|
Well, that kinda bites. As a very general principle, I'm leery of laws that deny an injured party their "day in court" altogether. But this interpretation seems clearly against public interest, as well as possibly the broader intent of the legislature and previously established case law. The particular section where a statute is codified seems a mighty thin reed upon which to hang such an interpretation.
It seems to me that "rescue" and "emergency medical care" are rather vague and overlapping concepts, not easily distinguished. The court appears to have made a distinction where there is not much of a difference
Let's hope a jury does the right thing according to the facts of the case, and that the CA legislature moves quickly to restore the status quo ante and re-extend immunity to its proper and reasonable scope.
Wait just a second, In most states I have visited there was something in the statutes regarding . . . "Failure to stop and render aid". . . Seems like we may have a contradiction in the two laws. I know that one of the last apprehensions I made was for just such a thing in Oklahoma. It applied not to just those who were actually involved, but those who suddenly "go blind" as the dust settles so they aren't late to their nail appointment. How can the legislature reconcile the two issues I wonder?
_________________________
I do the things that I must, and really regret, are unfortunately necessary.
RIP OBG
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#159229 - 12/20/08 01:13 AM
Re: CA Supremes allows Good Samaritans to be sued
[Re: Desperado]
|
Cranky Geek
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 4642
Loc: Vermont
|
How can the legislature reconcile the two issues I wonder? Why should they bother? I hate to sound cynical, but I doubt they will. Someone might try, but it will probably get killed. They could then stand up and say they are protecting people from those who practice medicine without a liscence or medical vigilantes or some such stupidity. Remember, legislatures have made laws that include "if two vehicles shall meet at an unsignaled intersection, neither may proceed until the other has gone." They also think that banning inanimate objects can change behavior.
_________________________
-IronRaven
When a man dare not speak without malice for fear of giving insult, that is when truth starts to die. Truth is the truest freedom.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 registered (Jeanette_Isabelle, Ren),
394
Guests and
70
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
