Sorry you're severely injured and dying, but I can't help!

Tomorrow, I am doing a re-cert for CPR and basic 1st aid, both required for my recert WFA. For years, in those courses, we have been reassured that the Good Samaritan laws in all states protect you when you attempt to help someone in dire straits. But in December, the California Supreme Court ruled that the law only protects medical professionals in the course of their duties. A bill has been introduced in the California legislature to remedy this situation. Now for many of my volunteer activities (leading Sierra Club outings, training Boy Scout adult leaders for high adventure activities such as winter camping or conducting rock climbing activities for their scouts, some other activities), I am required to be current WFA or better. It appears, though, that if you are on my trip or if I encounter your wrecked car by the roadside, or see you trip and fall on the trail striking your head on a rock, and you do not completely recover, you could sue me.

In the case in question, a woman was in a serious car accident just in front of her friend. The friend ran up to the car and pulled the injured woman out of the car, fearing that the car might explode or go up in flames. The injured woman apparently had a neck injury and ended up paralyzed. So she sued her friend for pulling her from the wreck "like a rag doll", and allegedly aggravating the neck injury to cause the paralysis.

I did a bit of a search of Good Samaritan laws on the web (lots of discussion has popped up as a result of the case) and discovered that the states vary widely. Some restrict the protection to only medically trained personnel, some include professionals who have first aid training, and some restrict the protection to certain specific situations (like cardiac arrest) or specific practices (like CPR and rescue breathing).

So, I guess my decision is this - I will get the training so I can get the certificate, but I won't help anyone in distress. If your wrecked car is going up in flames, I guess I will just take photos. I don't want to get sued for trying to use my training to keep you from dying.

Well, no, not really. I guess I will just try to help and risk getting sued. All I have to lose is my 1953 Palo Alto tract house that is supposed to disappear under water in 20 years, due to global warming.

I've been around this block a couple of time myself, Bill. Here's a message as posted on my local Emergency Services forum. CERT, by the way, stands for Community Emergency Response Team, as outlined by the Department of Homeland Security.

**************************************************************
"The 4th edition of each state’s liability laws can be found on our home page. Please make sure your volunteer agency has general, director and officer liability insurance. This supreme court decision will have an impact on how served agencies utilize volunteers." http://www.operationtakemehome.org
News article below. This may change aspects of CERT forever, or at least get some to carry waiver forms (or a lawyer) in your trunk before rendering aid.
It's unfortunate we don't have a "lawsuit detector" to check victims
first. This can make us all skeptical of anyone who may need or want
our help.
Personally, I cannot afford to get sued for doing a good deed. As an
instructor I may no longer advise or instruct my students in rendering
such aid due to the extended possibility a student may get sued in a
case like this and tell the courts I told and instructed them on
rendering aid, making me liable as well.
As much as I think it is way outside the spirit and intent of CERT to
be 'activated' by an agency, Disaster Service Worker protection
"might" protect aid-givers - but I'd check on that as well.
Recommend all to get absolute clarification in your respective States
and check precedent decisions before assuming "Good Sam" will protect
you.
======================================================
California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for
nonmedical care.
The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a
crash victim from a car 'like a rag doll,' allegedly aggravating a
vertebrae injury.
By Carol J. Williams
December 19, 2008
Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier. The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who
pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil
liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.
The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the
responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the
first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident
in good faith could be sued.
Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by
Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked
car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn,
a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in
the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by
making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the
court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on
protections for those trying to help.
In 1980, the Legislature enacted the Health and Safety Code, which
provides that "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."
Although that passage does not use the word "medical" in describing
the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the
code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there,
lawmakers intended to shield "only those persons who in good faith
render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency,"
Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.
The high court cited no previous cases involving good Samaritan
actions deemed unprotected by the state code, suggesting the challenge
of Torti's rescue effort was the first to narrow the scope of the law.
The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the
legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in
need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the
necessary aid."
Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was "illogical" because it
recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical
care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving
a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can
be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the
victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while
thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote for the
dissenters. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity
for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle,
even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."
Both opinions have merit, "but I think the majority has better
arguments," said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and
bioethics law at USC.
Shapiro said the majority was correct in interpreting that the
Legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals
from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with
"reasonable care," as the law requires.
Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash
victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court's
message was that emergency care "should be left to medical professionals."
Torti's liability has yet to be determined in court, and if the
Legislature is unhappy with any judgment arising from the immunity
denial, it can revise the code, he concluded.
Torti, Van Horn and three other co-workers from a San Fernando Valley
department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of
drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m., the justices
noted as background.
Van Horn was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Anthony
Glen Watson, whom she also sued, and Torti rode in the second car.
After Watson's car crashed into a light pole at about 45 mph, the rear
car pulled off the road and driver Dion Ofoegbu and Torti rushed to
help Watson's two passengers escape the wreckage.
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, and Van
Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her
out "like a rag doll."
Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae
injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.
Neither Torti nor her attorney, Ronald D. Kent, could be reached
immediately. Kent's Los Angeles law office said he was in meetings on
the East Coast and may not have seen the decision.
Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, disputed the notion that
the ruling could have a chilling effect on laymen coming to the rescue
of the injured. Good Samaritan laws have been on the books for
centuries and state that "if a person volunteers to act, he or she
must act with reasonable care," Hutchinson said.
"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn
by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car,"
he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion
"irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car
inconsistent with that judgment.
Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek
in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of
the costs of her life care and loss of potential income. It was her
ambition to become a Hollywood makeup artist -- a dream no longer
achievable, the lawyer said.
Torti's trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year.

Total nonsense...where will it all stop?

My first aid training, though in need of updating, states in the hand book, that you ask permission from the injured for treatment, if the injured is unconscious you assume they would grant permission for treatment. That's very basic I know, but I think it should be a matter of intent as far as lawsuits are concerned.

You get sued because you make a split second decision to help an injured person? That's insanity. I understand it is more complicated than that, however we should be very careful not to place blame on well meaning individuals just because an accident has occurred. This seems to be a common thread in society these days, when something goes wrong, blame someone! God forbid it's our own fault, or that it is just an unavoidable consequence of life.

I am just glad we have yet another way to discourage people from helping others. This is a great legal precedent to have on the books... All we need is for people to start trying to help each other out in their time of need. What good would that possibly ever do? What kind of crazy world would we be living in then? Aren't people supposed to fend for themselves. After all we're all adults and if you fell and broke you leg while hiking, climbing ,biking etc you should be able to find a few sticks and some string and hobble the few miles back to your own car and drive yourself to a doctor. Otherwise stay at home and never leave your bed. As an aside, when you fall do your best not to hit your head may make it difficult to find sticks when your unconscious.

Mind you if I saw you fall and broke your leg I would be sure to give you encouraging “words” to help you on your way. That way I could feel as if I did something for you. Granted the “words” would be carefully chosen and would really depend highly on the legal advise I was given. This is to ensure that no words I would say would come back to haunt me financially. After all, what else could you possible need. I guess to be pragmatic and have my lawyer draw up some forms for you to sign prior to me offering you any help what so ever. And let's just hope your conscious, ok. But the more I think about it, that would require extra weight in my pack so I don't really see that happening. So I guess your just screwed, should have never left your bed.

And if it we're a child who was injured or lost, well that was the fault of the not so responsible adult for letting that happen. Because as we all know, accidents never happen. And children never really ever get hurt or lost, that's just the movies where people don't get sued.

We should only take care of ourselves!!! It's the natural order of things. Because after all we wouldn't want to someone to give us water if we were dehydrated, it could be toxic or poisoned. Or help us back to the path when we're lost, they may get you back to the path yes but not near where you parked your car. Or heaven forbid the try to help you when your injured, they better have good malpractice insurance.

(Yes, Yes... Sarcasm I know, but actions that our courts take like this truly is one of the ways I think we hurt ourselves as a society.)

I see deer hit and killed in front of my house several times a year, often its a fawn, or a pair and one lives with a broken leg - it would be a felony for me to give it care. The cops can only shoot it, and there simply is no money for fish and game. This law exists to keep people from poaching game animals, but what about frying them?

Oregon law prohibits wasting game meat, yet it is illegal to butcher road kill. After a few days the hiway department will toss it in the back of a truck and take it to the dump.

How bout those laws to protect children from being spanked? hey I could on and on - what is harm, what is good for you? Anyway California is too weird.

Jim S

Here in PA, roadkill deer can be taken and used as food - with the permission of the state Game Commission.

f klock,

How long does it take to get permission?

I hope your guys are faster than ours (South Carolina)

I almost hit a deer on the freeway northbound into Roanoake VA about 2 years ago, car behind me got it though, sad, but I do hate to see the meat wasted. SC is overpopulated with WT deer, and I would suspect the same is true of other areas.

Also sad to think that If the driver behind me had been injured it would possibly be okay to butcher the deer but not to render aid to the driver for fear of a lawsuit. I think the whole world is getting weird, just some areas faster than others.

Often, permission is given over the phone when you call a dispatcher. otherwise, and officer will come out and verify the kill and you're on your way.

Many states have SERIOUS problems with chronic wasting disease. That may be why they disallow taking of roadkill.

Yes, not every animal is healthy, and sometimes it is the sick or slow ones that get hit I'm sure. It is good that an attempt is made in your state however. I'm not sure what the law is in my state, but I know people do take road kill here. At least I've heard of it several times.

Actualy around here its generaly a strong animal - a leader, that bolts and jumps in front of a car as the rest stand by the side of the road waiting, and fawns that don't understand cars follow their mom, who may make it across the road. A deer will avoid commiting suicide if it can, but a fawn will follow its mom.

I'll have to find out how to request legal right to butcher a deer killed in front of the house. I might get 3 per year! Fortunately its not like that everywhere, but my house is where the hiway enters town and people are going really fast and the deer tend to hang on the edge of town.

Now for that I'd use a couple of big knifes.

SORRY BACK ON TOPIC,

So since the last time I had first aid was over 40 years ago as a boy scout, does that mean I can or cannot render aid which is or is not medical in nature?

Jim S

I have visions of a Monty Python skit - sort of the reverse of "bring out your dead."

i hope that this country will soon return to sanity,with al these laws and regs to protect us from our selves. my sister in laws sent me this,

Black and White (Under age 40? You won't understand.)You could hardly see for all the snow, Spread the rabbit ears as far as they go.Pull a chair up to the TV set,'Good Night, David. Good Night, Chet.'My Mom used to cut chicken, chop eggs and spread Mayo on the same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach, but we didn't seem to get food poisoning. My Mom used to defrost hamburger on the counter AND I used to eat it raw sometimes, too. Our school sandwiches were wrapped in wax paper in a brown paper bag, not in ice-pack coolers, but I can't remember getting e.coli.Almost all of us would have rather gone swimming in the lake instead of a pristine pool (talk about boring), no beach closures then.The term cell phone would have conjured up a phone in a jail cell, and a pager was the school PA system.We all took gym, not PE and risked permanent injury with a pair of high top Ked's (only worn in gym) instead of having cross-training athletic shoes with air cushion soles and built in light reflectors. I can't recall any injuries, but they must have happened because they tell us how much safer we are now. Flunking gym was not an option, even for stupid kids! I guess PE must be much harder than gym.Speaking of school, we all said prayers and sang the national anthem, and staying in detention after school caught all sorts of negative attention.We must have had horribly damaged psyches. What an archaic health system we had then. Remember school nurses? Ours wore a hat and everything.I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was allowed to be proud of myself.I just can't recall how bored we were without computers, Play Station, Nintendo, X-box or 270 digital TV cable stations.Oh yeah ... And where was the Benadryl and sterilization kit when I got that bee sting? I could have been killed!We played 'king of the hill' on piles of gravel left on vacant construction sites, and whe n we got hurt, Mom pulled out the 48-cent bottle of Mercurochrome (kids liked it better because it didn't sting like iodine did) and then we got our butt spanked. Now it's a trip to the emergency room, followed by a 10-day dose of a $49 bottle of antibiotics, and then Mom calls the attorney to sue the contractor for leaving a horribly vicious pile of gravel where it was such a threat.We didn't act up at the neighbor's house either because if we did, we got our butt spanked there and then we got spanked again when we got home. I recall Donny Reynolds from next door coming over and doing his tricks on the front step, just before he fell off. Little did his Mom know that he could have owned our house. Instead, she picked him up and swatted him for being such a goof. It was a neighborhood run amuck. To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told that they were from a dysfunctional family. How could we possibly have known that? We needed to get into group therapy and anger management classes? We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills that we didn't even notice that the entire country wasn't taking Prozac! How did we ever survive? We had group therapy in those days. It was called baseball, football, bikes and lots of friends. Everyone played, good, bad and in between. But we all had to be home before the street lights went on or else the bikes got taken away.LOVE TO ALL OF US WHO SHARED THIS ERA, AND TO ALL WHO DIDN'T; SORRY FOR WHAT YOU MISSED. I WOULDN'T TRADE IT FOR ANYTHING.Pass this to someone and remember that life's most simple pleasures are very often the best.

So, I take that by some of your responses that you would have no problem if you or a loved one spends the rest of their life as a paraplegic because someone could not tell the difference between steam and smoke, coolant and gas, and with unwitting haste/panic causes your injury to be more severe or life threatening. Should the Good Samaritan law be there to absolve everyone, regardless if their actions were unnecessary and reckless? I think that all of us would hope that should we find ourselves in that situation, we would like to be helped by someone with an intelligent thought process and logical actions.

I've read this case several times. I think the majority opinion is wrong, but to some extent, I understand their reasoning. I guess what the court is saying is "don't try to help if you don't know what you are doing." This does make some sense, but will also discourage people from helping others, which is unfortunate. The solution will be for the legislature to rewrite the law and close the exclusion.

Oregon law"

(2) No person may maintain an action for damages for injury, death or loss that results from acts or omissions of a person while rendering emergency medical assistance unless it is alleged and proved by the complaining party that the person was grossly negligent in rendering the emergency medical assistance.

Jim S

sounds like all we can do is tell the injure party to rub some dirt on it, if they're unconcious i'd leave a note.