No more Good Samaritans

[crazy connie]

Once again in the courts we screw up so badly.

Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued - Yahoo! News

[Walt34]

Perhaps not. "Good Samaritans" sometimes do incredibly stupid things. In MD the standard was "gross negligence" meaning something akin to putting a tourniquet around someone's neck to stop a nosebleed. Yes, someone can be sued for doing something that foolish.

In the cited case there is no mention of fire or explosion, only that the would-be rescuer was "afraid that the car would explode". Upon what data did she base that concern? Watching too many movies?

[socca]

Quote:

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

The message being sent here is that not only is someone not obligated to come to someone's aid, but they are foolish if they do so. This message might play well in LA or Sacramento, but hopefully there are other areas of the country that encourage a higher standard of personal behavior. :confused:

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 In the cited case there is no mention of fire or explosion, only that the would-be rescuer was "afraid that the car would explode". Upon what data did she base that concern? Watching too many movies?

Well, I can tell you from experience that the fear is very real.

I was hit, blacked out for a bit, and when I came to (car shoved off the road by the impact) a guy was talking to me outside my window. My wrist was broken and twisted around in a very ugly position, my glasses had flown from my face. He was reluctant to do anything other than talk to me to calm me down because of fear of liability. I told him I understood, but begged with him to just help me to get myself out of the car. I was scared out my wits that the car was going to catch on fire, and I was not able to get the door open, or get my seat belt off.

I don't remember the sequence of events, I was too out of it, but I think he opened the door for me. I don't recall if I was able to get my seatbelt off myself, or if someone helped. But I did end up getting to the side of the road to lay down, I think someone had a blanket for me to lay on or something, it is all pretty foggy. I don't remember if anyone helped me to get out, or just made it possible for me, by taking away barriers (like the closed door and seat belts).

So maybe there is only one chance in a 1000 that the car would catch fire, but I still felt safer by the side of the road. I don't know, but you do see cars in flames on the news from time to time. That said, I have to admit that I would hesitate more to move someone who was unconscious, since you have no feedback at all on their condition. But what if that car *did* catch fire, and the onlooker did nothing? How would they feel then? It's rare case, you do what you think is best, under bad conditions with limited information, and you live with the results.

Doesn't England base this on the 'reasonable man' approach? If it was 'reasonable' for the person to help the person from the vehicle, under the circumstances, that that is a good defense? I don't think a lawsuit should be out of the question - but the bar should be pretty high before you can sue good samaritans. If you had no law at all, someone could stage a minor accident, then murder the person masked as a feeble attempt to help and get off the hook - " I just tried to help him, you can't sue me".

-ERD50

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Doesn't England base this on the 'reasonable man' approach? If it was 'reasonable' for the person to help the person from the vehicle, under the circumstances, that that is a good defense? I don't think a lawsuit should be out of the question - but the bar should be pretty high before you can sue good samaritans. If you had no law at all, someone could stage a minor accident, then murder the person masked as a feeble attempt to help and get off the hook - " I just tried to help him, you can't sue me". -ERD50

That's a good point, I could see something like someone having a shard of glass stuck in hem and someone "accidentally" stabbing them in the heart with the hunting knife they were using to dig it out.

Aren't there other states where they have good Samaritan laws where you are required to help someone if it's reasonable to do so? It could be really bad if passersby were trapped either way, help and get sued/go to prison, or don't help and get sued/go to prison.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frugality_of_Apathy That's a good point, I could see something like someone having a shard of glass stuck in hem and someone "accidentally" stabbing them in the heart with the hunting knife they were using to dig it out.

This is ridiculous. But you knew that didn't you?

Ha

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha This is ridiculous. But you knew that didn't you? Ha

Well, if they actually made a law that you cannot sue an apparent good Samaritan, someone will take advantage of that. And it will become a made-for-TV movie, or a 'ripped-from-the-headlines' weekly.

Yes, pretty ridiculous, far more good than harm would come from it overall, but that scenario could happen.

-ERD50

[Martha]

Negligence claims are based on the duty to act as a reasonable person. Some states have passed good Samaritan laws making the standing higher, like gross negligence or reckless disregard (the tourniquet on the neck issue). My thought is that the legislature in California will take some action. But, how likely will a jury find negligence in a case where someone was trying to save someone's life? My opinion is that this may have a chilling effect but generally nice people are nice and will help even if there is some risk. Unless you are Jerry, Eileen, Kramer and George.

[bongo2]

Funny you should mention this. . .

A few weeks ago a car about 50 yards in front of me hit ice, slid sideways, rolled a couple times, and flipped about 5 feet in the air onto the median ending up on its roof. I stopped, but a couple other guys were quicker than I was and pulled the driver from the car. Luckily they didn't seem at all concerned about getting sued, but then the driver didn't seem very hurt at all.

The car sat there (upside down) smoking ominously, and then, about 2-3 minutes later, it did catch fire. One of the people who stopped was driving a construction truck and had a fire extinguisher, and the fire truck was there just a few minutes later, so everything was very well contained. With all the horrible stories you hear like the above, or about people who won't help, it was nice to see people doing the right thing.

[ladelfina]

In Italy one is instead legally obliged to try and help. You can be charged with "omissione di soccorso", though I don't know how frequently that occurs. I have mostly only heard of it on the news relating to hit-and-runs.

When you take the driving exam you have to study and answer (just a very few) questions on emergency first aid situations most likely found at the scene of accidents. There wouldn't be liability for doing something "wrong", but what is indicated is very minimal stuff, like how to recognize shock, and try to stop bleeding. It's not like they were encouraging people to get real entrepreneurial. Interestingly there were also questions on insurance, witnesses, and so forth.

A newly added safety law requires that all vehicles have both a reflective triangle and a reflective vest in the car. You are supposed to put the triangle 150m from a breakdown or accident, and wear the vest when you are out of the car so as to not get run over in the dark. It was also a windfall for the triangle and vest makers.. but it's not a terrible idea all things considered.

[Walt34]

Note too the distinction that the court ruled only that the accident victim could sue. The court did not rule that the accident victim would be awarded damages or that there was merit to the case.

The issue before the court was merely the question of "can the accident victim sue" the person who pulled her out of the car.

Generally, you can sue somebody for being ugly. Being awarded damages is another matter.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 Generally, you can sue somebody for being ugly.

Perhaps so. But any system that doesn't require the plaintiff in such a frivolous case to pay all legal costs of the defendants is at least somewhat broken.

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Perhaps so. But any system that doesn't require the plaintiff in such a frivolous case to pay all legal costs of the defendants is at least somewhat broken.

I think in the case that the plaintiff loses they should be forced to pay whatever they paid to accuse the defendant plus the court costs.
That would prevent the plaintiff from spending millions of dollars for lawyers against someone who needs the discount mall lawyer. Would also prevent the defense from taking advantage in a case they are likely to win.