California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for "nonmedical" care

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-good-samaritan19-2008dec19,0,6547898.story

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.

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.

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'

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.

People that sue their rescuers should have to have day-glo orange liscense plates to prevent any future attempts.

+1

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.

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?

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.

State laws vary widely. Many states do not impose a legal duty to render aid, unless you are involved or caused the incident, or owe some sort of pre-existing or custodial duty to the victim, such as a parent, Scoutmaster, employer, etc. On-duty emergency workers obviously have a legal duty to respond, but off-duty emergency or medical personnel almost never do (contrary to myth). Oklahoma apparently imposes a legal duty, which I'm guessing may be an incident to issuance of a driver's license. You can also create a duty by beginning or appearing to render aid, since this may lead others to assume their assistance is not needed.

State "Good Samaritan" also vary widely in their scope of application and degree of immunity conferred.

Agreed Jeff. As I understand CA law, the "duty to act" for EMS workers applies... but only if one is identified as such. So, people with a star of life or FF helmet sticker technically "need" to act. Of course, if it's one's day off and they're NOT identified (by Joe Schmoe saying, "Hey, that's the EMT that took care of me in my accident), then it's perfectly ok to keep driving and give the "EMT salute."

"...leave California now..."

Already gone, and not a moment too soon...

That's good. I am trying to figure the line charge budget to get the initial perforation started. Then on to autotrader.com for a big enough bull dozer and it's a done deal.

Yikes.
That's just scary.

I'll take the contrary view - in the case at hand the defendant was found not to have acted within the realm of reasonable care. She yanked the victim out of the car, without a plausible risk to the victim's life such as imminent fire, aggravating a spine injury. Nothing about this decision seems contrary to the samaratin law as I understand it: know your limitations, act within your training, do no harm (and don't improvise). One of the justices seems to have pointed out, she doesn't get a free ride for her lack of training (or potentially, for being drunk) and rendering ineffective and injurious assistance. A reasonable person - whether EMT or bystander - happening upon the accident scene would have left the victim in the car, called 911, and at most attempt to support / keep her head still until assistance arrived.

I'd have to read the actual case to understand if it chills the samaratin law in some way.

Lono, you make a good point, however, in the article it mentions that she DID fear the car would catch fire (though no others mentioned it).

My big qualm with this ruling is that, apparently, the court decided that the injuries sustained were the result of being pulled from the car, not hitting the pole at 45 mph. Gee, judges, and clairvoyent physicians, huh?

Who's to say this lady's injuries weren't exactly the same today as the second after the impact? The news article (as I skimmed it) doesn't mention whether the injuries truly were resulting from being manipulated after the accident.

Obviously, we don't have all the information. Still, the fact that the court is infringing on this law leads me to think twice about helping someone.

I would like to see the driver's and passenger's BAC. I bet it would have something to do with hitting a pole "out of the blue".

I see the problem as the judicial drawing of a distinction between "rescue" and "medical care," and denial of the protection of CA's "Good Samaritan" law to "rescuers," not the particular facts of the case.

"Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion." She may well have acted negligently, but the jury will have to decide that.

The larger issues are whether there is really a meaningful difference between rescue and medical aid in an emergency, and whether this decision will have an undue chilling effect on the gratuitous rendition of emergency assistance to those in peril.

I can tell you it will keep anyone I help in the future from getting ANY identifying information about me. I think back to those folks on the side of I35 just this Thanksgiving weekend. Hope nobody collected my tag number.

Several years ago, my neighbor's Doberman jumped over his fence into our yard and bit the mail lady on the hand causing her to drop her mailbag and then bleed all over our front porch. After hearing her scream, we rushed to the door and observed her bleeding and the dog being dragged away by our neighbor who was repeatedly punching it in the snout. We sat her down, brought her a clean towel to wrap her hand, provided her a phone (which she asked for) to call her supervisor, we went out and picked up her spilled mail and brought the bag back to her, and then waited by her side until a supervisor came to the scene to take her to a doctor. Within two days we received a letter stating we were being sued.

If the neighbor's dog ever jumps over his fence again and attacks the mail lady, rest assured she'll bleed a very long time before anyone comes to her assistance.

Bummer. What were you sued for, the initial dog bite or something to do with the assistance you gave her? How was the suit resolved? Surely your homeowner's insurance carrier cross claimed against the dog owner, if the motion for a directed verdict/dismissal failed?

Before I make my main point, I seem to remember a case in CA where a bystander sued both drivers of a car accident that occurred in an intersection she/he was waiting to cross. I believe claiming emotional trauma of some kind.

This law shows why decisions by committee can be so obtuse. This continues to follow the logic of a thief suing a homeowner because criminal broke their leg in the act of robbing their house. Or suing because they required medical attention after being stuck in their garage during the summer and getting dehydrated before the police were called to arrest him.

This legal system is no longer in favor of defendants being 'guilty until proven innocent'. Its the defendant is a victim and entitled to compensation. In some cases more than they would have received had they just stolen the family jewels and the tv.

Utter buffoonary.

I will leave the long version to those who made it farther than 1 semester in law school, but . . .
One must remember that in a civil case there are two things working against the defendant: 1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary. 2) In a civil case the defendant must prove that they are not "guilty" (insert proper term in the quotes Jeff). Whereas in a criminal proceeding the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty by the state.

I discussed this with my counsel, (try being a builder and NOT having a lawyer.) and he told me from here out that unless I was directly involved in the accident all I should do is offer to call 911. He might be right, I just hope I don't have to find out.

It's nice when #1 son is your counselor's assistant coaching a mite development hockey team. Bills are somewhat smaller for after hours work.

I have received similar counsel.

In the real world: how many times have you and 100 other people sat in a movie theater waiting for the movie to start ten minutes past the listed time. Everyone is thinking, "Someone will go tell them." or "They'll be here in a minute to get it going."

Gee, if someone is choking in a restaurant, almost everyone will be looking at the person choking or looking away as not acknowledging the situation absolves them of having to be involved. "Someone who works here will call." "Someone here will help the choker."

Now if someone does the Heimlich maneuver they could potentially be sued by the choker for breaking their rib, throwing their back out or getting a steak sauce stain on their cashmere sweater.

You might not want to call 911 either,

http://www.florida-cracker.org/archives/004483.html

The court found her fear of fire to be unreasonable under the circumstances, not shared by anyone else at the scene apparently, and her unfounded fear of fire caused her to take precipitious action, yanking the victim from the car. The victim would have been better off remaining in the vehicle until help arrived. Obviously I can't separate an injury sustained in a 45 mph crash from one aggravated during rescue, a rescue that was poorly timed and attempted - but someone found that the rescue did actual harm, convincing evidence from a doctor's testimony probably. Whether we agree or not from 1700 miles away and perfect hindsight isn't really germane to the issue - there was a court, testimony, and a decision by a jury. If you or I were on that jury we would know all the admissible facts, we might have reached the same conclusion, or a different one.

I don't think the victim would have any claim against professional rescuers who would have pulled her from the vehicle, unless they acted as preciptiously or incorrectly (outside their professional obligation). In the words of Obi Wan, I just don't sense a disturbance in the force of the Good Samaratin law, at least not to the extent of others here. I'll still call 911, and if the scenario calls for it try to stop bleeding, or hold a head still until rescuers arrive. Even in California. That's not bravery, that's the reciprocal compact of the Samaratin law, which says if I stumble on scene I can give assistance within the limits of my training. Someone can later question that training, or I can exceed or perform poorly, but I am afforded some protection in return for making the attempt. If California actually interprets this such that samaratins should travel with a lawyer at all times, then it has a chilling effect. The improper actions of an untrained, possibly drunk defendant don't appear to have a great impact on me.

I now have to return to my storm preparations, the Great Wall of White Death approacheth the Pacific Northwest and I need to cache my frozen blueberries.

Agreed - no offense, this is why I don't like random counter-examples thrown out to support a point. What was the resolution of the claim, where did it take place, did you engage a lawyer - what did the entire incident actually cost you, in money, time and effort?

Whether you like it or not Sotto, the dog bite took place on your property, you were involved because of that - the neighbor's dog did the biting, but you provided the locus, and any lawyer worth their salt will join anyone in a lawsuit in an attempt to obtain all the facts for their client. Your beef - and your part of the lawsuit - is with your neighbor, for an uncontrolled dog who trespassed on your property and bit the mail person. The point of you getting a letter wasn't to find you liable for the dog bite or the medical assistance, it was to determine the actual facts and find the actual neighbor liable for their dog. If the outcome was different I'm all ears, but if the outcome was any different I suggest there might be more to the story, or you had really ineffective counsel.

I know its lousy to ive in a world of litigation, but on the other side of it there are a lot of folks out there avoiding responsibility (dog owners), to the extent that the rest of us (living next to the dog owner) get involved in lawsuits, just because the dog bit the mail man on our property. We sometimes live in the path of the tornado.

What I take from this is that the court will second-guess my actions if I happen upon an accident before the professional first responders. What's a joe-citizen to do? First, the vic will stay where I found her/him; that decision has now been made, the Good Samaritan Law provides zero protection. Second, since I'm not an EMT (or wannabe), my first aid kit is now going to stay in my truck. Those 4x4's are for my boo-boo's.

I'm almost willing to +1 on this. Yeah, I'm an EMT, but y'know, if I'm by myself, there is absolutely NO moving of the patient unless the car is actively burning. Even then, I might grab a few pictures to prove the point before I move the patient. Or more likely, open the door, point at the fire, and say, "Hey the car is on fire!!!" They can wrench their own back.

It's bad enough that I have to watch my a$$ while on the job; I'm not willing to have to watch it 24/7. Maybe I can have a contract drawn up and consent signed before I act in the future (only a slight jest)

Doug! A "political" thread!

Can we not all agree now that "politics" is the lifeblood of every single issue worth even talking about? Can we not see that avoiding "political" discussions is like holding our breath?

Please refer to forum rules and guidelines.







The bar has been raised and it took the actions of logical, clear thinking, constitutionally conservative, patriotic Americans like the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT to do it!

((( )))

The really sad part of the entire story is that in facing the decision to render aid to someone that needs it, the CA court has now placed good samaritans in a shoot don't shoot decision matrix.

"Do I need to shoot? Will I go to prison?" "Do those folks need first aid? Will I be sued? Will the car burn before EMS gets here?"
At least the first aid decision will allow a little more time to think.
The times they are a changing.

Aside from a burning car (which is relatively remote, but is why I carry a fire extinguisher), I can't think of a MVA where I would ever move a victim or even encourage them to move. MVA = possible spinal injury, stay put for responders. Actively discourage them from even moving until the guys with the red rotating lights arrive. They can exit under their own power, they can collapse and die, but I would never move someone from the vehicle.

You're all getting het up over a remote and relatively implausible scenario. I don't think this impacts those of us who stop bleeding and support heads, only those who venture further in practicing medicine. EMTs should maybe ask their union heads to get a legal opinion to suss out whether they have more liability at the scene of an accident they stumble on than they had before this decision. I guess not, but I still haven't read the opinion.

"...the court will second-guess my actions..."

That is what courts always do. Ever heard of a court taking weeks/months/years to decide if a cop (or john doe citizen) was proper in shooting the badguy, when the shooter had less than a second to decide? That is what they do, every day. Might not seem fair, but that is our system as it now stands.

I kindasorta have to agree with the court, much as I might not want to. As I understand it, a good samaritan is covered as long as they act within the scope of their training. No one is trained to run up to a crashed car and yank the occupant(s) out. Sometimes you have to, I did once, driver and passenger. Lucky for me/them, nothing happened other than they are still among the living (and I got to have a second back operation). In the case in question, sure, the victim might have already suffered the injury, but we will never know, thanks to the "rescuer" taking the action he/she did...

Very few EMTs actually belong to a union. Which is one of the reasons that they're making <$10/hr in most of the US (among many other reasons).

I read the court's decision. It's online at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S152360.PDF

The issue, according to the court, revolves around "medical" care. The statute says, “No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.”

The problem is that this section is part of a larger scheme which has a definition of emergency: “a condition or situation in which an individual has a need for immediate medical attention, or where the potential for such need is perceived by emergency personnel or a public safety agency.”

So the Supreme Court found that the Good Samaritan statute deals with providing medical attention when it says "emergency care." In the case in question, a woman pulled a crash victim from a car and left the victim lying on the ground by the car. The victim suffered spinal injury, is now a paraplegic, and is suing the driver of the car and the Good Samaritan, claiming both caused or contributed to her paralysis.

The Good Samaritan provided no medical care or attention to the accident victim, and the Supreme Court found that the normal law of negligence applies:
"Under well-established common law principles, a person has no duty to
come to the aid of another. (Artiglio v. Corning, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 613;
Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23.) If, however, a person
elects to come to someone’s aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care." This means, it seems to me, that this case is not a change in how the law is applied generally, it's just a statement that the Good Samaritan law applies to medical care at the scene of an emergency, not to rescue efforts. (Three justices dissented from the opinion, pointing out some problems with the majority's decision, and those problems seem like, well, problems to me.)

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.

Believe me, if there is not an acute reason for me to move someone, I am not even thinking about it. I learned that in jr. high. I have even had to stop someone from trying to move a motorcycle away from an accident area because there were not enough folks to help, and we couldn't ensure that the bike wouldn't fall on the victim.

I don't see this as a problem.

In this case the 'rescuer' was burdened by a common misunderstanding promoted by the media that cars that crash tend to explode in flames. Fifty years of movies and TV shows feature this as a plot device. Car crashes in a movie it is almost always on fire and about to explode. In real life most don't catch fire and those that do don't tend to explode.

The rescuer should have simply turned off the ignition and waited for the EMTs to roll up with a back board and cervical collar. As it was they reenacted what they saw n TV and this compromised the driver's spine.

Bottom line here is you have to know something to act. Outside a clear and immediate threat to the victims life and limb they should have not moved them.

Several states have enacted 'Good Samaritan' laws. These protect the person who attempts to help. But the protection is not unlimited. A common standard is that actions should comply with what an average person would consider reasonable and risks taken with the life and limb of the victim should be proportional to the risk of inaction.

In this case if the car had been actively on fire so that the fire presented a greater risk to life and limb than moving the victim without a backboard and collar it would have been justified. As it is rescuer played the hero without knowing, or even considering, the risk and the person was injured.

Bottom line here is that you have to know your limitations and act in a reasonable and conscientious manner based on the situation. Not playing the hero and taking risks with other people's lives based on what you see on TV.

Ignorance, and watching too much TV, is always a limiting factor in what anyone can or should do.

Since few Californians piped up on this, I will, by stating that we may live in a state (and in my case, own a business in a city) that over-legislates, but it's still a great state to live in, and if I ever render aid in good faith, and get sued, I will hope for a favorable outcome and keep my conscience clear.

People that want to sue will always sue and let the court decide right or wrong, win or lose, appropriate or inappropriate. I can't live my life worrying over or in fear of impending litigation.......

That being said, when I do get sued, let's forget I said anything.

For those of you who are EMTs or other healthcare pros, check out HPSO liability insurance. It's pretty good coverage (including off-duty) for reasonable prices. I consider it a non-negotiable cost of working in EMS.

"DNR"

-john

Jakam - "People that want to sue will always sue and let the court decide right or wrong, win or lose, appropriate or inappropriate. I can't live my life worrying over or in fear of impending litigation......."

In an emergency you have to quickly but carefully consider the situation, how to act and how your actions might look to others. If you were sued and you had to explain your actions, methods and motivation to a jury could you do it? Would a jury of reasonable people see you actions as conservative, reasonable and well considered given the situation?

If you can't picture yourself being able to explain your actions, or inaction, to a jury of common people then it should give you a clue as to how reasonable your plan really is.

A sly and cunning lawyer may still try to paint you as a villain but worse case, assuming you considered it beforehand, you can still hold your head high, look the jury in the eyes, and honestly tell them that you were doing the best you could given the situation. IMO most juries will give the benefit of the doubt to a person who was reasonable, careful, conscientious and acting in good faith.

But you have to make sure what you do can be seen as reasonable, careful, conscientious.

Many such suits are initiated by the payer of the costs of medical care. Beneficiaries can be, and usually are, contractually bound to aid their insurer in recovering these costs.

You may have no choice but to sue your best friend one day, if your insurance company decides that he could be legally responsible for causing your claim for insurance benefits.

Jeff

Which means that the CA Supremes have codified the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Lawyers and insurance companies will take that ball and run with it.

+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.

what about the elephant in the room?

the three women had been smoking marijuana prior to adjourning to a bar for 3 1/2 hrs where they had 'several drinks'.

could it be that someone's judgment was impaired?

i'd hope that my fellow members here wouldn't get behind the wheel impaired in the first place, and if they did, and saw an accident, they'd call 911 and keep on going.

i wouldn't want any impaired person helping me, thank you very much.

best for the impaired and best for me.

+1