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.