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.