California Supreme court allows lawsuit against a Good Samaritan [Archive]

megrfl

21-December-2008, 03:15 AM

In turn, couldn't the good samaritan sue for distress related to being a good samaritan, especially if it were due to the negligence of the one needing to be rescued? Does that make sense?

At work years ago while on my way to lunch at our on campus cafe, I heard one of our residents screaming. I ran towards her, but I couldn't make out what was wrong; the closer I got I could see a swarm of bees encircling her. I had no idea how severe the attack was, I just reached under her arm to move her away as quickly as I/she could. Under her arm were hundreds of bees, I was stung multiple times on my hands and finger tips, the pain was excruciating (imagine her pain). I noticed her entire left ear and the right side of her head was covered in bees. I was fully aware of the pain I was about to endure and I almost hesitated, but I reached over and swiped them off. Thankfully, they just dissapated.

My point, the resident sued and I didn't. However, the resident was not negligent. Sueing never crossed my mind.

Jens

21-December-2008, 03:40 AM

My point, the resident sued and I didn't. However, the resident was not negligent. Sueing never crossed my mind.

Who did the resident sue? Bees?

Jens

21-December-2008, 03:43 AM

One thought about this story: though it seems ludicrous, I do think that there should be limits on good samaritanism. Once when I was coming home late, I saw an old man collapsed in front of the station. And another elderly man, obviously drunk, was trying to give him CPR or something. And a woman ran over and shouted at the guy, "why are you doing that? He's obviously breathing!" Well, the guy was drunk and probably not doing anything strong enough to break ribs, but still...

megrfl

21-December-2008, 03:54 AM

Who did the resident sue? Bees?

The facility. The residents had been telling the maintenance workers that there were a lot of bees around the trash reciprocal. They may have checked it out, but it wasn't logged. After the attack a gigantic nest (yellow jackets) was found at that particular reciprocal. It was the facilities negligence.

hhEb09'1

21-December-2008, 04:55 AM

The facility. The residents had been telling the maintenance workers that there were a lot of bees around the trash reciprocal. They may have checked it out, but it wasn't logged. After the attack a gigantic nest (yellow jackets) was found at that particular reciprocal. It was the facilities negligence.So, she won over the bees? That should be celebrated in verse.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 11:45 AM

The California Supreme Court ruling in this case centered on a statutory interpretation. The justices decided that the California legislature did not include non-medical emergency aid when they wrote the Good Samaritan statute. This is what they wrote:

"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. (Williams, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 23.) Thus, a “good Samaritan” who attempts to help someone might be liable if he or she does not exercise due care and ends up causing harm. (Ibid.) The Legislature has enacted certain statutory exceptions to this due care requirement. One such statute, Health and Safety Code section 1799.102, immunizes any “person who . . . renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency . . . ” from liability for civil damages.
In this case, defendant Lisa Torti removed plaintiff Alexandra Van Horn from a vehicle involved in an accident and, by so doing, allegedly caused Van Horn to become paralyzed. In the resultant suit for negligence, Torti argued that she had provided “emergency care at the scene of an emergency” and was immune under section 1799.102. The trial court agreed and granted her motion for summary judgment, but the Court of Appeal reversed. We granted review to determine the scope of section 1799.102. We hold that the Legislature intended for section 1799.102 to immunize from liability for civil damages any person who renders emergency medical care. Torti does not contend that she rendered emergency medical care and she may not, therefore, claim the immunity in section 1799.102. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal."

It's complaints about this sort of ruling that kinda irks me, for two reasons. First, people tend to ascribe motivations to the justices/judges that simply aren't there. A statutory interpretation should and usually does involve no examination of the merits of the acts in question, only how the existing state law applies to the case.

Second, those that sometimes complain of 'activist' judges don't realize that this is exactly the ruling that they are clamoring for. Not saying anyone here has made that complaint.

The citizens of California don't like that interpretation? Get the legislature to write a clearer law.

Jeff Root

21-December-2008, 12:36 PM

geonuc,

You wrote, "It's complaints about this sort of idiotic ruling that kinda
irks me". Why? (Of course, you left the word "idiotic" out of your
actual text, but that is what you intended.)

The quote you provided was the last bit of evidence I needed to
convince me that this wasn't just some misrepresentation of what
actually happened, but really was total stupidness on the part of
the court. Total stupidness. Nothing else. Before reading your
quote, I assumed the court had a good reason for reversing the
summary judgement. Your quote shows that they did not.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Moose

21-December-2008, 12:42 PM

The citizens of California don't like that interpretation? Get the legislature to write a clearer law.

With respect, geonuc, I think they may have dropped the ball with that ruling. The snippet from that law clearly says "emergency care". Not "emergency medical care". If the legislature intended to say "emergency medical care", then they needed to say so when writing the law. As you say, if somebody doesn't like it, get the legislature to clarify the law.

In terms of good sense (I rarely say common sense anymore. Or rather, common sense isn't good sense and vice versa. Er... yes...) In terms of good sense, I guess the matter depends on how at-risk the victim was had he/she been left in the car. If, for example, the gas tank had failed, and there was significiant risk of a fire...

geonuc

21-December-2008, 01:40 PM

geonuc

21-December-2008, 01:48 PM

With respect, geonuc, I think they may have dropped the ball with that ruling. The snippet from that law clearly says "emergency care". Not "emergency medical care". If the legislature intended to say "emergency medical care", then they needed to say so when writing the law. As you say, if somebody doesn't like it, get the legislature to clarify the law.

In terms of good sense (I rarely say common sense anymore. Or rather, common sense isn't good sense and vice versa. Er... yes...) In terms of good sense, I guess the matter depends on how at-risk the victim was had he/she been left in the car. If, for example, the gas tank had failed, and there was significiant risk of a fire...
The quote I provided was just the first part of the opinion. I believe the court examined the intent of the legislature by looking into the legislative history and what applicable codes were written to implement the statute. This is standard practice when statutes are ambiguous.

But, from a legal perspective, it's important not to ignore the first part of that court opinion. Prior existing law provided no immunity from suit for any good samaritan acts. Because the law holds that people have no general duty to render aid (there are exceptions and the statute in question created one), for a statute to provide an exception and immunize a voluntary act, the courts, correctly in my opinion, will construe the exception narrowly.

mugaliens

21-December-2008, 01:55 PM

Foreward: Not picking on you, geonuc - not in the least! You do bring up some good points, though, which I feel should be addressed. So, nothing personal...

The California Supreme Court ruling in this case centered on a statutory interpretation:

"We granted review to determine the scope of section 1799.102. We hold that the Legislature intended for section 1799.102 to immunize from liability for civil damages any person who renders emergency medical care. Torti does not contend that she rendered emergency medical care and she may not, therefore, claim the immunity in section 1799.102. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal."

Oh, I get it. It's ok to be immune if you're rendering emergency medical care, but not if you're rendering emergency lifesaving care. I'll remember to pack a syringe of atropine and an IV with ringers lactate the next time I'm on the road just in case I come across a heart attack victem. Of course, I don't know what the bleep I'm doing with atropine or ringers, and am more likely to kill the victem than I am to help the, but that's ok! The California Supreme Court (oooh, ahhh, background music and kneeling followers...) has said that rendering emergency medical care immunizes me from liability for civil damages.

:doh:

I wonder if that covers practicing medicine without a license, provided it's done so at the scene of an accident?

:wall:

Reminds me of a 1970's-era version of Frankenstein, wherein the opportunistic doctor was quick to treat the victems of street accidents, including one grisly scene of removing someone's arm. "But your honor - I was merely rendering emergency medical care! The law makes no provision for requisite levels of training when care is given at the scene of an accident...

I'll also remember to pack my "statement of non-help" that I'll read to the victem who's trapped in a burning car:

"Sir/Ma'am: I have called fire/rescue, but I regret to inform you that in accordance with California State Supreme Court ruling on section 1799.102, any action I may take to render non-medical assistance subjects me to civil liabilities, and will therefore be unable to assist you further. Do you require medical attention?"

Individual: "Yes! My car's on fire! Get me out of here!"

"I'm sorry, sir, but rescue, even in the event of imminent, life-threatening danger, is not considered 'medical attention' under California State Code, and regretfully, I will be unable to help you."

Even if I could get them to sign a waiver, it wouldn't hold up under court, as it would be a cinch to prove it was signed under duress.

It's complaints about this sort of ruling that kinda irks me...

It's the inability of the legislative and judicial system to work together to create laws which serve the general public in a timely manner which "kinda irks" me. Is the legislature incapable of sending legislation through the Surpreme Court for review? Do they not have lawyers on hand to review it for legality, accuracy, and clarity?

...for two reasons. First, people tend to ascribe motivations to the justices/judges that simply aren't there.

I would agree. The problem isn't one of wrong motives. Rather the problem is one of inept public service. If I were judge for a day, I'd kick it back to the legislature and say, "This version makes renders harmless a citizen who practices medicine without a license at the scene of an accident, but holds them liable for performing basic, common-sense life-saving actions."

A statutory interpretation should and usually does involve no examination of the merits of the acts in question, only how the existing state law applies to the case.

This is circular reasoning at it's worst - ensuring the law is iron-clad, properly interpreted does nothing to mitigate the fact that it falls short of protecting both good sumeritans and the injured public in the real world.

The citizens of California don't like that interpretation? Get the legislature to write a clearer law.

I got a couple of better ideas:

1. Replace legislators who can't write good law with those that can.

2. Ensure all legislation passes judicial review, to ensure that it's written in a manner which appropriately addresses the issue and without opening all these gaping pitfalls.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 02:28 PM

Foreward: Not picking on you, geonuc - not in the least! You do bring up some good points, though, which I feel should be addressed. So, nothing personal...

Nothing personal taken, mugs. We all are entitled to our opinions, and I've found yours to be quite well reasoned.

Oh, I get it. It's ok to be immune if you're rendering emergency medical care, but not if you're rendering emergency lifesaving care. I'll remember to pack a syringe of atropine and an IV with ringers lactate the next time I'm on the road just in case I come across a heart attack victem. Of course, I don't know what the bleep I'm doing with atropine or ringers, and am more likely to kill the victem than I am to help the, but that's ok! The California Supreme Court (oooh, ahhh, background music and kneeling followers...) has said that rendering emergency medical care immunizes me from liability for civil damages.

Yes, that is essentially what the court has ruled. But my point is that the ruling is their interpretation of how the legislature wrote the law. The legislature says that if you render emergency medical aid, you will be immunized from suit, not otherwise.

I wonder if that covers practicing medicine without a license, provided it's done so at the scene of an accident?

Yes, that is exactly the intent of the law. In the past, people were sued for rendering aid such as CPR and getting sued because they didn't do it properly or were not certified to do it.

I'll also remember to pack my "statement of non-help" that I'll read to the victem who's trapped in a burning car:

"Sir/Ma'am: I have called fire/rescue, but I regret to inform you that in accordance with California State Supreme Court ruling on section 1799.102, any action I may take to render non-medical assistance subjects me to civil liabilities, and will therefore be unable to assist you further. Do you require medical attention?"

Individual: "Yes! My car's on fire! Get me out of here!"

"I'm sorry, sir, but rescue, even in the event of imminent, life-threatening danger, is not considered 'medical attention' under California State Code, and regretfully, I will be unable to help you."

Even if I could get them to sign a waiver, it wouldn't hold up under court, as it would be a cinch to prove it was signed under duress.
You got it. But it isn't the court's doing; blame the legislature. Note also that the court merely said the statute didn't provide automatic immunity. Doesn't mean that a suit against a samaritan would prevail.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 02:33 PM

This is circular reasoning at it's worst - ensuring the law is iron-clad, properly interpreted does nothing to mitigate the fact that it falls short of protecting both good sumeritans and the injured public in the real world.

I got a couple of better ideas:

1. Replace legislators who can't write good law with those that can.

2. Ensure all legislation passes judicial review, to ensure that it's written in a manner which appropriately addresses the issue and without opening all these gaping pitfalls.
How is it circular? The law falls short of protecting all good samaritans. It is not the court's job to write the law, only to interpret it.

As to submitting laws for judicial review prior to enactment - it sounds like a good idea, but the US Supreme court has stated emphatically that federal courts will not do that. The court has interpreted the constitution to forbid it. There must be a 'case' before them.

Moose

21-December-2008, 02:34 PM

Geonuc, from what I'm understanding, it gets far, far worse.

If removing a victim from a wreck is now explicitly defined (by this very ruling) as non-medical emergency care, then the paramedics and/or firefighters cannot do their jobs without being open to civil penalties. Does this ruling not explicitly invalidate the intent of the Good Samaritan law?

geonuc

21-December-2008, 02:37 PM

Moose

21-December-2008, 02:51 PM

Okay. So Mugs is right. The law protects people who play doctor, but not ones who save lives. That's very backwards.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 02:52 PM

Just to amplify: the law surrounding good samaritans has everything to do with one's duty to act. You have no duty to rescue someone and cannot be sued for failing to do so. But if you do in fact, act, then you open yourself to do so with reasonable care - reasonable care being defined as what is reasonable for an untrained rescuer.

Professionals have a duty to act and are thus covered by an entirely separate body of law. Whether or not they can be sued for failing to act or for doing so without reasonable care is matter of some complexity and depends on the jurisdiction and what professional we're talking about and, in particular, whether the person is a state 'actor'. Judges, for example, have absolute immunity for their judicial actions. Other people may have qualified immunity. Some may have none at all.

Immunity means that a suit cannot proceed. It doesn't mean that if someone causes an injury due to inaction or incompetence that the suit will necessarily have merit. It just means that the court can't throw it out immediately. The facts and the law must be examined first.

tdvance

21-December-2008, 04:22 PM

Nicolas

21-December-2008, 05:41 PM

Even the discussion "is this emergency care or emergency medical care" is moot in this situation, as all emergency medical courses I ever had or read always had as first step:

1) make sure the victim is at a safe location, move the victim if necessary

Or something similar, obviously.

So even if the law only envisioned medical care, this still is part of medical care as far as I've ever had the instructions.

And then still, shouldn't law be interpreted with some healthy feeling for the situation? Isn't that what made the people from Alive (well, the real thing, not the movie) not being punished for cannibalism? I know that interpreting law can be dangerous, so it should be done with great care. But that's why not everyone is a judge. A judge should be someone who can distinguish fine from crime, good acting from criminal or unsafe behaviour.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 07:03 PM

"reasonable care being defined as what is reasonable for an untrained rescuer."

so how is removing someone from a car apparently about to burst into flames a case of not being "reasonable care" for the untrained rescuer?
You'll have to refer to the trial transcripts for that answer. I would note that your phrase 'apparently about to burst into flames' may or may not comport with the facts.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 07:09 PM

And then still, shouldn't law be interpreted with some healthy feeling for the situation? Isn't that what made the people from Alive (well, the real thing, not the movie) not being punished for cannibalism? I know that interpreting law can be dangerous, so it should be done with great care. But that's why not everyone is a judge. A judge should be someone who can distinguish fine from crime, good acting from criminal or unsafe behaviour.
In many cases a judge has that power, but often is restrained by the law. In this case, the California Supreme court is not the venue for making those sorts of decisions - the trial court is. In the first go round, the trial court dismissed the suit based on the good samaritan law. The appelate courts have reversed, saying that that is not a valid legal decision. The case returns to trial court, where the defense may prove that reasonable care was shown by the defendant in her actions or may have other defenses available that get her a favorable decision.

mugaliens

21-December-2008, 08:14 PM

Yes, that is essentially what the court has ruled. But my point is that the ruling is their interpretation of how the legislature wrote the law. The legislature says that if you render emergency medical aid, you will be immunized from suit, not otherwise.

Agreed. However, Congress uses judicial review panels before it passes any legislation. That doesn't mean it's perfect, by any means, but that process does help to avoid many pitfalls. I've heard of entire bills being rewritten, almost from scratch, because someone on the panel caught a technicality which would have rendered the entire bill untenable in court.

You got it. But it isn't the court's doing; blame the legislature.

Ibid.

Note also that the court merely said the statute didn't provide automatic immunity. Doesn't mean that a suit against a samaritan would prevail.

While that may be true, all it takes is the one judge who doesn't see it that way. At that point, it becomes an incredible financial and temporal burden on the accused individual to take it to the next level where, hopefully, it will be overturned. And even if it is overturned, the accused Good Samaritan is out thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars simply because they cared enough to help!

This is why it's so absolutely critical that both the courts and the legislatures work together to ensure that legislation doesn't run afoul of these issues.

tdvance

21-December-2008, 08:57 PM

You'll have to refer to the trial transcripts for that answer. I would note that your phrase 'apparently about to burst into flames' may or may not comport with the facts.

It would be strange for the law to require an untrained person to know this for sure! I don't know about California, but Virginia Supreme Court has overturned several laws for breaking its state constitutional prohibition against laws when a "reasonable person" cannot effectively decide if he's following the law or not. For example, the "stalking" law was overturned for exactly that reason--the case was a person who lived next to a woman, and worked in the same building as her, and since he met her in two places, and she feared him, that fit the legal definition of "stalking" in Virginia (two or more locations, victim feels reason to be afraid). Of course, it was a stupidly-written law to begin with....

Sam5

21-December-2008, 09:30 PM

You'll have to refer to the trial transcripts for that answer. I would note that your phrase 'apparently about to burst into flames' may or may not comport with the facts.

I think you are right.

The TV report said the people had left a company party. Do we know if the lady who did the pulling was drunk or not? Do we know if the lady in the car was just sitting there, in no danger? The car apparently didn't catch on fire.

The injured lady said the other lady pulled her out "like a rag doll". So, it is quite possible that the one who did the pulling did the wrong thing and in an improper way.

I've been hearing, ever since I was a kid in the 1950s, that bystanders should not rush to pull people out of wrecks, if the car is NOT on fire, since the injured people might have broken necks or spines.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 09:35 PM

It would be strange for the law to require an untrained person to know this for sure! I don't know about California, but Virginia Supreme Court has overturned several laws for breaking its state constitutional prohibition against laws when a "reasonable person" cannot effectively decide if he's following the law or not. For example, the "stalking" law was overturned for exactly that reason--the case was a person who lived next to a woman, and worked in the same building as her, and since he met her in two places, and she feared him, that fit the legal definition of "stalking" in Virginia (two or more locations, victim feels reason to be afraid). Of course, it was a stupidly-written law to begin with....
I don't think anyone has suggested that the law required someone to know that. I know I haven't said anything of the kind.

sarongsong

21-December-2008, 09:43 PM

The California Supreme Court ruling...This is what they wrote...Link?

TheHalcyonYear

21-December-2008, 09:46 PM

It would be strange for the law to require an untrained person to know this for sure! I don't know about California, but Virginia Supreme Court has overturned several laws for breaking its state constitutional prohibition against laws when a "reasonable person" cannot effectively decide if he's following the law or not. For example, the "stalking" law was overturned for exactly that reason--the case was a person who lived next to a woman, and worked in the same building as her, and since he met her in two places, and she feared him, that fit the legal definition of "stalking" in Virginia (two or more locations, victim feels reason to be afraid). Of course, it was a stupidly-written law to begin with....
Much of this is irrelevant when taken out of context. The state supreme court has appellate jurisdiction only. It's must rule on the legal issues as set within the framework of the state constitution as interpreted through common law. This is going to differ greatly from state to state.

Van Rijn

21-December-2008, 10:33 PM

"reasonable care being defined as what is reasonable for an untrained rescuer."

so how is removing someone from a car apparently about to burst into flames a case of not being "reasonable care" for the untrained rescuer?

One of the questions is whether it was reasonable to expect it to burst into flames. Here's a newspaper article discussion on it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-good-samaritan19-2008dec19,0,4033454.story

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."

I can certainly see a bit of gray area. On one hand, you don't want potential rescuers to be second guessing themselves in situations where they could help save someone from death or extreme injury. On the other hand, you don't want them to act in ways that will cause greater harm to people in stable situations. And, what makes it especially tricky is that people usually are very excited and are more likely to make errors in judgment under these conditions. In this case, it looks like there might have been alcohol involved too.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 10:34 PM

Link?
You can find the California appellate decisions here (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/). The case is Van Horn v. Watson

Larry Jacks

21-December-2008, 10:53 PM

I've been hearing, ever since I was a kid in the 1950s, that bystanders should not rush to pull people out of wrecks, if the car is NOT on fire, since the injured people might have broken necks or spines.

That's true but it isn't always possible to know for sure if a car is going to ignite or not. Back when I was 15, a friend of mine and I witnessed a car go through a guard rail and down the side of a mountain. The two of us - both Boy Scouts and trained in first aid - were the first on the scene. There were many people in the car ranging from an elderly lady to toddlers. Gas was pouring from the car and the possibility of ignition seemed quite real. We helped them from the car and up to the road. Fortunately, the car didn't ignite and the injuries were relatively minor. We wouldn't have moved them if the chance of fire wasn't so high.

My wife is a registered nurse. I've witnessed her give emergency aid to a burned truck driver, a woman who collapsed on a plane, and a diabetic who passed out in a store. As a medical professional, she has both the training and the responsibility to help when possible. However, stupid rulings like this one may make it less likely for people to step forward to help others because they fear being sued. Unless the law is changed, I predict people will die as a result of this ruling. Too bad it won't be the people who made the ruling.

mugaliens

21-December-2008, 10:55 PM

for a night of drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m.,

Who can tell me what's wrong with this picture? Why didn't the courts hold Van Horn responsible for getting into a car with someone who was intoxicated and stood a much greater chance of getting into an accident?

By the way, thanks, geonuc, for providing the link to the case itself. In it, I found, "renders emergency care" rather than the previously stated "medical care" or "emergency medical care."

I also found, "We hold that the legislature intended ... emergency medical care..."

Well, if that's what the legislature intended, why didn't they simply say so? Alternatively, if they didn't say so, why is the court rewriting the law to what they think was intended rather than simply taking the law as it's written?

It's not within the court's purview to rewrite the law!

BAD Court! BAD California Supreme Court Justices!!!

And don't try to weasel out on the "interpret" arguement, as what they did was most certainly not "interpreting."

I was discussing this with my father on the phone earlier, and he brought up a good point: "How many motorists who need aid will suffer, if not die, as a result of this court's wrongful 'interpretation' of the governing legislation?"

Thanks in large part to cases like these, my faith in lawyers remains at an all-time low. If Heinein's prediction of a revolt against the lawyers and the currently jacked-up legal system ever occurs, I'll be the first to run down Main Street with a noisemaker in one hand and an American flag in the other, whooping and hollaring and generally disturbing the peace - but for good reason!

TheHalcyonYear

21-December-2008, 11:10 PM

Well, if that's what the legislature intended, why didn't they simply say so? Alternatively, if they didn't say so, why is the court rewriting the law to what they think was intended rather than simply taking the law as it's written?

It's not within the court's purview to rewrite the law!

Because legislative intent is not such a simple issue. For at least the last several hundred years, the American and English courts have determining "legislative intent" to be based on the issues, correspondence, debate, etc. that are a part of the record for the enactment of a bill. For all that people complain about "activist" judges in this country, when such matters reach appellate courts it's usually the record of the legislative process that determines the outcome. That certainly seems to be the case here.

geonuc

21-December-2008, 11:24 PM

Well, if that's what the legislature intended, why didn't they simply say so? Alternatively, if they didn't say so, why is the court rewriting the law to what they think was intended rather than simply taking the law as it's written?
That's exactly what 'interpreting the law' means. Laws are rarely written so well as to either cover everything that was intended or even to properly define what the law seems to cover. Hence, the courts must interpret. Happens all the time and there's no real choice from a judicial standpoint.

You say 'bad Supreme Court!' I say bad Legislature!"

But, you know, this often isn't an oversite or bad writing on the part of the elected representatives. Sometimes, for political reasons, they prefer to have the courts do the dirty work. Not the way it should be, but there you have it. With something like this, I'm not sure what was going on. I don't know the history here, but I know there was a groundswell a while ago to immunize doctors who perform samaritan acts. This might be a result of that. If so, the legislature may not have wanted to get into immunizing bystander rescue efforts. Just speculating.

TheHalcyonYear

21-December-2008, 11:35 PM

You say 'bad Supreme Court!' I say bad Legislature!"

Exactly!! If a lousy bill becomes law and is brought before the court, it isn't the place of the court to make bad legislation good. In the case of a state supreme court (an appellate with no original jurisdiction), the responsibility of the court is two fold:

- to determine that the legislation does not violate provisions of the state constitution.

- to determine if the decision, as it stands, when it reaches the court, is proper according to the intent of the legislation and the laws of the state of California.

The state supreme court does not have the power to throw out a law simply because it believes the law to be stupid, poorly designed, or ill-advised.

Euniculus

21-December-2008, 11:43 PM

Interesting,

Say someone is a medical professional: doctor, nurse, EMT, etc, and they happen to witness an emergency situation, but are not actually part of the response team. They have the training and the professional obligation to help, but do they have the legal right/obligation to render aid?

TheHalcyonYear

21-December-2008, 11:52 PM

Euniculus

21-December-2008, 11:56 PM

I would suggest asking a legal expert.

Good answer. :)

JRSnider951

22-December-2008, 12:45 AM

It's already hard enough to get someone to help in an emergency. I should know, I had an accident a few years ago and it took forever to get someone to stop and call for help. The Good Samaritan Laws were enacted to protect individuals from being sued as long as they were acting with reasonable care. The last time I checked, if you were attempting to pull someone from a car you reasonably feared was about to catch fire this was reasonable behavior. Obviously, I wasn't there and don't know anymore than what was reported but, perhaps the plaintiff in this action would have preferred to be left in the car should it have caught fire.

All I can say is I'm a big believer in "what goes around comes around" and I hope this plaintiff is never in another situation where her life depends on the good intentions of a good samaritan. Perhaps they won't be so quick to help out of fear of a ridiculous lawsuit.

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 12:50 AM

tdvance

22-December-2008, 12:51 AM

I don't think anyone has suggested that the law required someone to know that. I know I haven't said anything of the kind.

in that case, case closed! Lawsuit over!

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 12:59 AM

in that case, case closed! Lawsuit over!
Not in this case. The law, as interpreted by the supreme court of California, gives the plaintiff the right to sue. The court didn't state that the law made sense, or that enforcement would be just and fair. It stated that the law was constitutional and that it gave the plaintiff the right to sue the the "good Samaritan". The state supreme court is *not* empowered to strike down legislation simply because it "doesn't like it". It is up to the legislature and those who have the vote in the state of California to determine what laws are enacted.

geonuc

22-December-2008, 12:59 AM

in that case, case closed! Lawsuit over!
Say what?

Trials are about sorting out who did what and what they should have done in the situation they were in. In this case, there can now be a trial (it may settle before going to trial) and if so, the jurors will decide if the defendant acted properly or is liable.

tdvance

22-December-2008, 01:05 AM

geonuc

22-December-2008, 01:06 AM

I would suggest asking a legal expert.
It will have to be someone other than me, though. I don't know the answer to the question, although I do know it's complex and varies according to jurisdiction.

As I mentioned before, the good samaritan laws were, in part, enacted to protect 'off-duty' medical professionals when they rendered emergency aid, at least to a certain extent (I believe the duty of care is still that of a trained professional, not an untrained bystander). But as to whether trained medical professionals are legally required to render aid, I don't know.

geonuc

22-December-2008, 01:07 AM

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 01:14 AM

I'd agree with that--IF the plaintiff were required to pay the defendant's costs if the plaintiff loses. Otherwise, what's to stop, well, the way things are currently? My trial cost me very little, since my insurance company paid for everything. Still, everybody with insurance is now paying for that trial in their premiums.

Of course, that would mean fewer trials...oh no, can't have that!
Perhaps nothing. This is the way that the legislature, with the consent of the voters of the state of California, wrote the legislation. If it is flawed, they can repeal or amend the law. This is *not*, however, the province of the supreme court. It has properly ruled that the law is constitutional and that the decision to move forward with the law suite is legal under that law.

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 01:17 AM

It will have to be someone other than me, though. I don't know the answer to the question, although I do know it's complex and varies according to jurisdiction.

As I mentioned before, the good samaritan laws were, in part, enacted to protect 'off-duty' medical professionals when they rendered emergency aid, at least to a certain extent (I believe the duty of care is still that of a trained professional, not an untrained bystander). But as to whether trained medical professionals are legally required to render aid, I don't know.
Exactly. Someone who is familiar with the details of the legislation would be needed. It's somewhat unfortunate, but we ask so much of the legal system in this country that it really has to be that way.

Van Rijn

22-December-2008, 02:03 AM

The last time I checked, if you were attempting to pull someone from a car you reasonably feared was about to catch fire this was reasonable behavior.

What if others do not agree that it is a reasonable fear, given the specific circumstances?

Obviously, I wasn't there and don't know anymore than what was reported but, perhaps the plaintiff in this action would have preferred to be left in the car should it have caught fire.

I'm only going by what I read too, but as I read it, there is a dispute that fire was likely and whether the actions were reasonable under the circumstances. As I read it, the plaintiff did not feel immediate "pulled like a rag doll" rescue was necessary.

HenrikOlsen

22-December-2008, 02:35 AM

"reasonable care being defined as what is reasonable for an untrained rescuer."

so how is removing someone from a car apparently about to burst into flames a case of not being "reasonable care" for the untrained rescuer?
So blame Hollywood for teaching people that a crashed car will unfailingly burst into flames and explode.

It's actually fairly hard for a car to start burning, even after the fuel starts leaking unless there's an idiot lighting a cigarette nearby, and holding the lighter down to the fuel afterwards.

Not moving the victim except to the minimum extent needed to stop bleeding or make it possible to provide CPR is a fundamental part of first aid, it's in the don't make things worse parts.

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 02:45 AM

So sue Hollywood for teaching people that a crashed car will unfailingly burst into flames and explode.

It's actually fairly hard for a car to start burning, even after the fuel starts leaking unless there's an idiot lighting a cigarette nearby.

Not moving the victim except to the minimum extent needed to stop bleeding or make it possible to provide CPR is a fundamental part of first aid.
And sue Hollywood for teaching people that the courts are suppose to make bad laws right. the responsibility of an appellate court is to safeguard proper interpretation and due process, *not* make bad laws good or rational.

HenrikOlsen

22-December-2008, 03:21 AM

The thing is, I actually think she is responsible for crippling the guy.

I also agree that the law could have been written better.

timb

22-December-2008, 03:41 AM

The thing is, I actually think she is responsible for crippling the guy.

I'm glad you are so very well informed about the specifics of this case. No-one else seems to be sure whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the rescue or the accident, yet you have clearly seen the facts. How did you do it? Plus, you saw through Van Horn's imposture as a woman!

megrfl

22-December-2008, 04:04 AM

So blame Hollywood for teaching people that a crashed car will unfailingly burst into flames and explode.

Ms Van Horn's lawyers questioned why Ms Torti, having pulled her out by her shoulder, "dropped" her next to the car if she believed it was about to explode

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3853395/Good-Samaritan-can-be-sued-after-pulling-friend-from-car-wreckage.html

I think it was just a friend trying to get her friend out of the crashed car. :)

Jeff Root

22-December-2008, 05:27 AM

I also agree that the law could have been written better.
Why? What shortcoming do you see in it? It looks fine to me.

From Division 2.5 of the California Health and Safety Code:

1799.102. 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.
Do you see a problem with the word "care"? Does that sound
too much like it is intended to refer only to medical treatment?
Should they have said "assistance" or "help" instead?

The problem is not with the wording of the law but with the idiotic
"interpretation" given to it by four of the seven California Supreme
Court judges.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root

22-December-2008, 05:52 AM

This may or may not be relevent, but for what it's worth...

Fifteen or twenty years ago I was sitting right where I am now when I
heard a crunch on the freeway that goes past my building. I went out
to look and it was a car that had rear-ended a truck. I crossed the
bridge to the other side, and may have had to climb over a fence to
get onto the freeway. There were only two or three people there when
I arrived, one of whom must have been the truck driver. It was rather
dark in that location, there were no lights on the car, and nobody had
a flashlight. I could see the man behind the wheel, not moving, but he
was just a silhouette against the light through the opposite windows.
There was no thought in my mind of any possibility of the car catching
fire, but it was obvious that we needed to get to him quickly. The doors
were locked and windows closed. My only effort was to try to get the
rear hatch open to get in that way, but there was nothing I could do
with my bare hands. I think I gave up when I saw emergency vehicles
arriving. The guy died in the car. He was in his thirties.

We tried, but we couldn't help.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 07:36 AM

The problem is not with the wording of the law but with the idiotic
"interpretation" given to it by four of the seven California Supreme
Court judges.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Glad you know so much about "interpretation". The "interpretation" is not as idiotic as it seems. It is an attempt to determine the "intent" of the law based on hearings, debate, and other public records associated with the bill at the time of its passage. In this regard, it interpretation appears to be quite accurate with regard to the intent of the legislators when they passed the bill into law.

Jeff Root

22-December-2008, 09:02 AM

The problem is not with the wording of the law but with the idiotic
"interpretation" given to it by four of the seven California Supreme
Court judges.
Glad you know so much about "interpretation". The "interpretation" is
not as idiotic as it seems. It is an attempt to determine the "intent"
of the law based on hearings, debate, and other public records
associated with the bill at the time of its passage. In this regard, it
interpretation appears to be quite accurate with regard to the
intent of the legislators when they passed the bill into law.
So you have studied the records and made your own judgement.
What info in those records convinced you that "emergency care"
was intended to mean "emergency medical care"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

geonuc

22-December-2008, 09:29 AM

So you have studied the records and made your own judgement.
What info in those records convinced you that "emergency care"
was intended to mean "emergency medical care"?
The opinion of the court is fairly well laid out and describes the legal reasoning involved, including lengthy discussion of why the word 'medical' was implied by the legislature (according to the majority). The dissent also makes a good case. This was a close one.

mugaliens

22-December-2008, 10:39 AM

Because legislative intent is not such a simple issue. For at least the last several hundred years, the American and English courts have determining "legislative intent" to be based on the issues, correspondence, debate, etc. that are a part of the record for the enactment of a bill. For all that people complain about "activist" judges in this country, when such matters reach appellate courts it's usually the record of the legislative process that determines the outcome. That certainly seems to be the case here.

This appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)is logically fallacious, and in no way undermines the fact that the practice of twisting plain English into something it's not is wrong.

The greatest service the courts could to, both in the immediate and the long-term, would be to apply the law, as it is written, rather than to try and second-guess legislators who, it is assumed, already possess sound English language skills. In so doing, the courts would add emphasis on the responsibility of the legislature to write clear, concise law.

geonuc

22-December-2008, 12:55 PM

This appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)is logically fallacious, and in no way undermines the fact that the practice of twisting plain English into something it's not is wrong.

The greatest service the courts could to, both in the immediate and the long-term, would be to apply the law, as it is written, rather than to try and second-guess legislators who, it is assumed, already possess sound English language skills. In so doing, the courts would add emphasis on the responsibility of the legislature to write clear, concise law.
Appeal to tradition is not a logical fallacy in a legal sense. It's just part of the way the system works. Stare decisis is not a fallacy either.

Mugs, I take it you still feel the statutory language is clear and that there should never have even been an argument. Have you read the opinion? It's not long and, unlike a lot of opinions, doesn't drown in legal mumbo-jumbo. Very understandable for the lay person. I think you will still side with the dissent but I'd like to think that you'd at least recognize that there are substantial differences of opinion and that the statute is not that clear from a legal point of view.

tdvance

22-December-2008, 04:14 PM

Glad you know so much about "interpretation". The "interpretation" is not as idiotic as it seems. It is an attempt to determine the "intent" of the law based on hearings, debate, and other public records associated with the bill at the time of its passage. In this regard, it interpretation appears to be quite accurate with regard to the intent of the legislators when they passed the bill into law.

So accurate that almost half dissented? Perhaps we only disagree on which half made a preposterous decision.

geonuc

22-December-2008, 04:51 PM

So accurate that almost half dissented? Perhaps we only disagree on which half made a preposterous decision.
In my opinion, neither is preposterous. The majority opinion requires a bit more legal understanding to fully grasp, but both are reasonable positions.

Fazor

22-December-2008, 05:31 PM

Okay; I know you've all been waiting eagerly for my opinion. I do not think that anyone acting as a "good semaritan" should be immune to lawsuites. One still needs to act rationally. But that determination should be made on a case by case basis, with the standard of "What would the average person have done?"

I'm not saying that they didn't do that with this case. A lot of people seem upset because the woman is being sued for "trying to save her friend"; granted I wasn't present at the hearing, but I have yet to see where any of her actions would have saved her friend. They're arguing she was afraid that the car would explode; but was there a demonstrable reason why she should have believed that would happen?

HenrikOlsen

22-December-2008, 05:40 PM

but was there a demonstrable reason why she should have believed that would happen?
Does the unfortunate fact that every car that crash in a movie explode in a massive fireball count?

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 05:42 PM

So you have studied the records and made your own judgement.
What info in those records convinced you that "emergency care"
was intended to mean "emergency medical care"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
I would suggest that you read the record and determine what convinced the California Supreme Court, it's their decision that matters not mine.

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 05:47 PM

This appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)is logically fallacious, and in no way undermines the fact that the practice of twisting plain English into something it's not is wrong.

The greatest service the courts could to, both in the immediate and the long-term, would be to apply the law, as it is written, rather than to try and second-guess legislators who, it is assumed, already possess sound English language skills. In so doing, the courts would add emphasis on the responsibility of the legislature to write clear, concise law.
Not "tradition", "legal tradition", the idea that a law fits into a framework of "common law" and precedent. That a law must be interpreted through the lens of the public record that is associated with it.

The role if the appellate court is quite clear in this regard. It is not its province to "add emphasis on the responsibility of the legislature to write clear, concise law" this is up to the legislative branch and the people they represent. The courts, and appellate in particular, are responsible to determine that the "will of the people" is enforced within the framework of the constitution and common law.

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 05:49 PM

TheHalcyonYear

22-December-2008, 05:52 PM

So accurate that almost half dissented? Perhaps we only disagree on which half made a preposterous decision.
This is not science, this human affairs; there are few, very few appellate cases that are decided unanimously.

Perhaps you only disagree with the half that disagree with you.

Edited to Add:

This has gone far beyond a discussion, when people begin to suggest that some of the most distinguished legal minds in the country have made "a preposterous decision" because others disagree with them. If I were to make such pronouncements concerning scientific opinions, specifically those made by respected astronomers", I would be relegated to ATM and mostly likely spend a certain period banned from this forum.

There is a difference between respectful disagreement and and making summary and bigoted pronouncements of preposterous and the like. Some of the posters have crossed that line so I leave you to your lynch party.

Fazor

22-December-2008, 05:58 PM

It doesn't suprise me that it was a split-decision. The question of whether or not a resonable person would have also been worried about fire/explosion is not a cut-and-dry thing.

Reasonably; most cars do not burn or explode in an accident. But, sometimes it happens. Was the person qualified to determin what the car was going to do? Apparently, the majority of the judges said "she should have known better."

geonuc

22-December-2008, 06:22 PM

It doesn't suprise me that it was a split-decision. The question of whether or not a resonable person would have also been worried about fire/explosion is not a cut-and-dry thing.
That's not what the decision was about. It was about whether bystanders are immunized by law for rescue efforts. Only if they are not will the determination of whether she acted with due care come into play.

Jim

22-December-2008, 06:23 PM

mugaliens

22-December-2008, 06:24 PM

Mugs, I take it you still feel the statutory language is clear and that there should never have even been an argument.

Yep.

Have you read the opinion?

Yep.

Very understandable for the lay person.

I'm reasonably familiar with business law...

I think you will still side with the dissent...

Yep.

...but I'd like to think that you'd at least recognize that there are substantial differences of opinion...

Yep.

...and that the statute is not that clear from a legal point of view.

This is the problem I have with the "practice" of law. The law states, "...emergency assistance..." then those who "practice" law step in and say, "well, what they really meant was 'emergency medical assistance.'"

The problem is that these folks need a lot more practice! :lol:

This has gone far beyond a discussion, when people begin to suggest that some of the most distinguished legal minds in the country...

Whoa... waitaminute... "...some of the most distinguished legal minds?" Are you serious? Are these the same folks who're apparently unable to provide a straightforward read of the English language? Hang on, I'm going to go ask my neighbor's kid.

He's five.

...

He understands the difference. I asked him, "if there is a law which says that it's ok for someone to help out someone else who has been in an accident, does the person helping out have to be a doctor if the law doesn't say that?"

Him: "What kind of accident was it?"

Me: "It was a car accident."

Him: "Then, no. Now, if it said you had to be a doctor, then you'd have to be a doctor. But if it doesn't say you have to be a doctor, then you don't have to be a doctor."

I have a sneaking suspicion that the five year old who lives upstairs has a "finer distinguished legal mind" than some of the justices on the California Supreme Court. It's a pity, really, as those involved in the practice of law do this to themselves. They twist and so utterly convolute things they loose sight of which way is up. The only reason the old saw about "99% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name" isn't funny is because there's a large element of truth to it.

My own lawyer wanted to mount a serious counter-claim against my ex's lawyer's claim that certain stocks weren't being fairly divided. He was valuing them at their face value on a certain date, a face value which has no bearing on their value today.

So I fired my lawyer, then fired off the following to the judge:

"1. The plaintiff's claim that I am contesting the provisions of the decree is false. As the remainder of her arguement before the court is based upon that false supposition, her arguement, in it's entirety, is without merit, and I will spend no further amount of my time on her seven-page arguement to the court.

2. Stocks are not cash. They are property. When property is split, it is valued at market value at the time it is split.

3. There are currently x number of shares. I choose to abide by the terms of the decree and Arkansas state law which calls for the equal division of assets by giving her 1/2 of all shares. Thus, she should get x/2 shares, while I keep x/2 shares. Since x/2=x/2, the shares, the property, has been equally split in accordance with state law."

The judge responded with, "If you have no further objections Mr. A (her lawyer), I am ruling in favor of the defendant. I wish there were more of him in my court - he makes my job easy."

That happened yesterday!

Fazor

22-December-2008, 06:34 PM

That's not what the decision was about. It was about whether bystanders are immunized by law for rescue efforts. Only if they are not will the determination of whether she acted with due care come into play.

Heh, I knew this; yet somehow ignored it as I typed my post. Thanks :)

geonuc

22-December-2008, 06:42 PM

I recall having conversations in class in law school about the problem of the law's lack of accessibility to lay people. In other words, why are laws written so obtusely and why do some words mean different things in law than in common usage?

There are several reasons but the one I remember most has to do with precision. Just as scientific papers are written with a precision (and lexicon) that baffles most folks, so too is the law. Subtle changes, uses of words and construction of sentences and paragraphs mean things and you can't really do away with it without losing the precision you need to describe exactly what the law is.

Most people have a hard time with that, but nobody carries around statutes for reference to be sure they conform to the law. In this case, the defendant probably had no idea of the good samaritan law and would probably have done the same thing even if the law didn't exist, in which case there would be no question as to her liability for her actions.

mugaliens

22-December-2008, 06:44 PM

PS: I rest my case.

Fazor

22-December-2008, 06:59 PM

Most people have a hard time with that, but nobody carries around statutes for reference to be sure they conform to the law. In this case, the defendant probably had no idea of the good samaritan law and would probably have done the same thing even if the law didn't exist, in which case there would be no question as to her liability for her actions.

I carry around a copy of the Ohio Revised Code. :) It's about 4 years old now though; so it's out of date; and it's only state law.

But yes; there's certianly a reason it takes more than six months worth of evening classes to become a lawyer.

SeanF

22-December-2008, 07:13 PM

He understands the difference. I asked him, "if there is a law which says that it's ok for someone to help out someone else who has been in an accident, does the person helping out have to be a doctor if the law doesn't say that?"
Why did you ask him that? Whether or not she was a doctor wasn't at issue here.

And did you ask him what he thought should happen if the person was not actually "helping out" but was instead hurting the victim even more than the accident did?

mugaliens

22-December-2008, 07:53 PM

Why did you ask him that?

Because he's only five.

And did you ask him what he thought should happen if the person was not actually "helping out" but was instead hurting the victim even more than the accident did?

Hang on...

mugaliens

22-December-2008, 07:59 PM

Hang on...

Ok. I asked, "What happens if the person who is being helped gets hurt?"

Him: "You mean in the accident?"

Me: "No, by the person who's helping him."

Him (thoughtful): "Did he mean to hurt him?"

Me: "No, he was trying to help him."

Him: "Well, you should never hurt anybody, but he is helping him."

Me: "Do you think the person who's trying to help should get into trouble?"

Him: "No."

Me: "Why not?"

Him: "Because he was trying to help him."

My God, I love this country. From the mouths of babes, ladies and gentlemen! From the mouths of babes!!!

I know who we should elect to be our judges. Mmm-hmm! That's right: five-year-olds.

Play it, Sam.

geonuc

22-December-2008, 08:00 PM

But yes; there's certianly a reason it takes more than six months worth of evening classes to become a lawyer.
Three years full time; four years (plus summers) in night school the way I did it. Bachelor's degree required for admission.

geonuc

22-December-2008, 08:01 PM

You're being silly, mugs. You know perfectly well the issue is more than that.

Jeff Root

22-December-2008, 08:02 PM

So you have studied the records and made your own judgement.
What info in those records convinced you that "emergency care"
was intended to mean "emergency medical care"?
I would suggest that you read the record and determine what
convinced the California Supreme Court, it's their decision that
matters not mine.
That is not the information I need, nor is it the information I asked
you for. You said:

The "interpretation" is not as idiotic as it seems. It is an attempt
to determine the "intent" of the law based on hearings, debate,
and other public records associated with the bill at the time of its
passage. In this regard, it interpretation appears to be quite
accurate with regard to the intent of the legislators when they
passed the bill into law.
So I asked you what info in those records convinced YOU that
"emergency care" was intended to mean "emergency medical care"?

Since you made your own independent determination of the intent
of the California Legislature, I am interested to know what specific
facts swayed YOU to agree with the majority decision rather than
with the minority.

So I repeat: What information in the legislative records convinced
YOU that the term "emergency care" was intended by the legislature
to mean "emergency medical care"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Fazor

22-December-2008, 08:08 PM

My God, I love this country. From the mouths of babes, ladies and gentlemen! From the mouths of babes!!!
I know who we should elect to be our judges. Mmm-hmm! That's right: five-year-olds.
You're biasing the questions though. What if you asked him "If someone was trying to make your favorite toy better, but accidently broke it, who should pay to get a new one?"

In other words; what's the accident victim's perspective? Yes, the other person was trying to help. But now, the victim is stuck with all sorts of medical bills and a life-long disability beacuse of that very help. Is it fair that the victim pay out of their own pocket for these issues, which they would not have endured for not the actions of the good samaritan?

SeanF

22-December-2008, 08:17 PM

He understands the difference. I asked him, "if there is a law which says that it's ok for someone to help out someone else who has been in an accident, does the person helping out have to be a doctor if the law doesn't say that?"
Why did you ask him that? Whether or not she was a doctor wasn't at issue here.
Because he's only five.
Well, then, why not just ask him if chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla? If you're going to ask a different question just so you can get a "yes" answer out of him to counter the "no" answer from the court...

Doodler

22-December-2008, 08:21 PM

Maybe we need to keep in mind that the CalSC has not ruled on anything except that the case may go forward. No decision has been made on liability. It is up to the trial court to determine whether the GS's actions were reasonable or not.

Even saying so much is the acknowledgement that grounds exist to potentially convict. This conversation is less about the particulars of liability in this instance, but the fact that liability can even exist in the first place.

If this were a no-brainer, they'd have looked this pretentious git right in the eye and laughed her out of court.

tdvance

22-December-2008, 10:41 PM

This is not science, this human affairs; there are few, very few appellate cases that are decided unanimously.

Perhaps you only disagree with the half that disagree with you.

Edited to Add:

This has gone far beyond a discussion, when people begin to suggest that some of the most distinguished legal minds in the country have made "a preposterous decision" because others disagree with them. If I were to make such pronouncements concerning scientific opinions, specifically those made by respected astronomers", I would be relegated to ATM and mostly likely spend a certain period banned from this forum.

There is a difference between respectful disagreement and and making summary and bigoted pronouncements of preposterous and the like. Some of the posters have crossed that line so I leave you to your lynch party.

when people begin to suggest that some of the most distinguished legal minds in the country have made "a preposterous decision"

nothing new there-distinguished minds of various types have berated other distinguished minds of various types--I'd say in each case, SOME distinguished mind was preposterous! Nothing makes one exempt, or else we'd have made that "divine right of kings" thing work better than it did.

mugaliens

22-December-2008, 10:48 PM

You're being silly, mugs. You know perfectly well the issue is more than that.

True... It is fun, though, to make light of one aspect that, to me, does appear somewhat ridiculous.

mugaliens

22-December-2008, 10:56 PM

Is it fair that the victim pay out of their own pocket for these issues, which they would not have endured for not the actions of the good samaritan?

Considering the alternative stood a high chance of being death, or permanent disfigurement due to being burned in a fire...

It's a judgement call, really.

Despite the sound warnings not to move the victem of an accident, unless the danger of not moving the victem is greater, the truth is that spinal cord injuries almost always occur as a result of the initial impact, not subsequent movement, for a variety of reasons (swelling and muscle tension immobilizing the area being one). If there's a no-kidding M.D. here, let's hear it.

The key part is that second part: "...unless the danger of not moving the victem is greater."

Who's the better judge of the danger? The individual who was just in the accident? Or an individual who witnessed it, and spotted fuel leaking and smoke?

The legal point should be, "Was there reasonable cause for the witness to believe that by not moving the individual, the individual would be in greater danger?"

Given the information at hand, I believe that to be the case.

Van Rijn

22-December-2008, 11:38 PM

Considering the alternative stood a high chance of being death, or permanent disfigurement due to being burned in a fire...

That is not clear. That's a large part of the question that led up to the initial case, which developed into this argument about the underlying law.

The legal point should be, "Was there reasonable cause for the witness to believe that by not moving the individual, the individual would be in greater danger?"

Given the information at hand, I believe that to be the case.

Given the information I've seen, it is not at all clear to me. I quoted this bit from a news article before (http://www.bautforum.com/1393465-post32.html), but here it is again:

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."

(emphasis added) So, apparently, there are other witnesses, not just the plaintiff, that didn't agree with Torti. Prior to this court ruling, it wouldn't matter, because Torti would be protected from civil action even if she was wrong. Now, her action is open to review in court.

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 12:52 AM

This is all nonsense.

That lady was already screwed. She had been handed one of the realities of life.

Now that misfortune has struck- she wants a scapegoat. Someone she can hate and blame and fatten her wallet in the process.

LIFE is not fair. No DUH. We learn that fact at like 2 years old.
So with life being unfair, what happens when we start blaming and suing the people that stop and try to make it as fair as possible?

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 12:58 AM

(emphasis added) So, apparently, there are other witnesses, not just the plaintiff, that didn't agree with Torti. Prior to this court ruling, it wouldn't matter, because Torti would be protected from civil action even if she was wrong. Now, her action is open to review in court.

It's disgusting. Even if she was wrong.

"Like a rag doll"?

What plane of REALITY are we actually living in here?
She was undoubtedly moving as swiftly as she could.

How many people have I tossed around like ragdolls?

My Grandfather worked at the Naval Weapons Station in CA.
Therre was an emergency incident on the pier at Mare Island. He had run down the pier, literally THROWING and KICKING (yes KICKING) people off the pier and into the water. Undoubtedly, he injured quite a few people.

He did this because he had NO TIME to cuddle them and hug them and ask them to nicely dive into freezing water. He had reason to believe their lives were in danger.

Seconds later, an explosion ripped the pier. All the people in the water were still alive, my grandfather was called "Heroic"

Heroic!?!?! NO!!! This cannot be! He KICKED PEOPLE! Like rag dolls!

Some people debating this in the thread may agree with this womans actions. I don't care if you do or not. I have ZERO respect for her actions. None. Zip. zilch.

I have a son. Single parent. He's five.
he relies on me. He depends on me.

So now- if we can sue eachother for helping...

What am I going to do the Next time I pass by a bad car accident or something?
Will I stop to help and place my SON in clear danger of having his ENTIRE Childhood life being uprooted and broken by Expensive lawsuits and defense and court appearances?
Maybe.
Maybe I'll make a snap decision and hope that person isn't lawsuit happy.

Then again...
Maybe I won't.
Maybe I'll look at a situation where I could help, maybe save someones life- and I'll shake my head and just pass right on by. Maybe I'll be as selfish as these frivolous lawsuit happy scapegoat seeking greedmongers.

Van Rijn

23-December-2008, 01:05 AM

What I find interesting are the assumptions that are being made in this discussion. I've yet to find anything that clearly shows that that there would have been a fire, or that reasonable people would have agreed there would be a fire, or that the initial injury was such that the action of pulling her out of the vehicle was irrelevant. Yet, those seem to be common assumptions here. If there are some references that clarify this I'd love to see them.

Van Rijn

23-December-2008, 01:12 AM

It's disgusting. Even if she was wrong.

So, a person's actions shouldn't matter, just as long as they think they're helping?

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 01:42 AM

So, a person's actions shouldn't matter, just as long as they think they're helping?

In A Court Room?
Yeah, why not?

Are you saying a persons intent shouldn't matter, as long as you can find a way to present the illusion that they are liable?

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 01:49 AM

You didn't save my life! You ruined my death! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/)

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 01:53 AM

You know.. It's funny.

The whole point of this manmade invention of Suing other people.. is to make a person "responsible" for when things go wrong.

Why then, are so many lawsuits so irresponsible?

Van Rijn

23-December-2008, 03:37 AM

In A Court Room?
Yeah, why not?

Because people should be responsible for their actions.

Are you saying a persons intent shouldn't matter, as long as you can find a way to present the illusion that they are liable?

No.

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 04:44 AM

Because people should be responsible for their actions.

Define this Perfect world, Van Rijn, in which responsibility for actions requires punishment of good deeds?

The ability to sue and claim another person as responsible is a fantasy- a man made invention, a product of desire and nothing more.

It is not a real world application. As much as people try to make it into one.

Even so- why is a Court Ruling REQUIRED in order to claim that someone was held responsible?

Does it ever occur to you that people are held responsible for their actions Outside of court rooms all the time?

sarongsong

23-December-2008, 05:45 AM

What "good deeds"?

Van Rijn

23-December-2008, 06:51 AM

Define this Perfect world, Van Rijn, in which responsibility for actions requires punishment of good deeds?

This is a loaded question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions), so I see nothing to answer.

The ability to sue and claim another person as responsible is a fantasy- a man made invention, a product of desire and nothing more.

I think it is a bit more than that - a mechanism to keep disputes relatively controlled, rather than in an anarchist setting. Are you arguing against civil court in general?

Even so- why is a Court Ruling REQUIRED in order to claim that someone was held responsible?

It isn't. People can claim all sorts of things.

Does it ever occur to you that people are held responsible for their actions Outside of court rooms all the time?

Yes, of course. :rolleyes: That doesn't mean that, in court, people should be absolved of all responsibility for any of their actions.

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 07:32 AM

What "good deeds"?

Oh I dunno... Things like saving your butt from a car wreck?
This is a loaded question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions), so I see nothing to answer.
You can think the question is loaded- doesn't detract from your responsibility to answer.
I think it is a bit more than that - a mechanism to keep disputes relatively controlled, rather than in an anarchist setting. Are you arguing against civil court in general?
My arguments are just as I state.
Yes, of course. :rolleyes: That doesn't mean that, in court, people should be absolved of all responsibility for any of their actions.
It also doesn't mean we can claim that people are "responsible" for misfortunes when they acted to help others.

Let's talk about "responsibility" Van Rijn- and holding people accountable to it.

By the arguments you are giving in this thread, people could sue eachother simply for being rude- anything that causes grievous discontent in their life.

Let's say you are walking along a hiking trail, Van Rijn.
You notice a man hanging precariously from a cliff.
So You stop and look at him. Then you ask if he's just hanging around or if he would like a hand up.
The man tells you that he lost his footing and managed to break his fall over the cliff by catching it in one hand. His other arm is broken. The arm he is hanging from pulled out of the shoulder socket from the jar of his arresting his fall.
Seeing this precarious situation, you have several choices.
1.Wimpy) Get on your cell phone and call for help (however long it will take to arrive) and hope the man doesn't lose his grip.
2.Decisively active) Reach down, take the mans hand and wrist and drag him back up to safety.
3. Apathy) Turn and keep right on walking and ignore him.

Now- each of these choices bears responsibilities you could be held accountable for in court:
1.)
a.) The man falls to his death before a rescue unit arrives. You're then asked why a strong strapping lad such as yourself could have pulled him to safety but didn't. You're charged as responsible for his death.
b.) The man manages to traumatically maintain his grip, but after the rescue unit drags him up, he sues you for the ordeal of you having left him hanging so long when you could have pulled him up.
2.) You pull the man up bu his arm, causing further injury since it was pulled out of its socket. He sues you as the responsible party for him having lost the use of his arm.
3.) Similar to the first- only worse. You're charged as being responsible either for the mans death (The family sues the tar out of you) or his ordeal having been abandoned by someone who could have pulled him to safety but did not.

Van Rijn...
a person can ALWAYS be accused of having responsibility for ANY situation.
Your fantasy about "holding people responsible" has little weight in the Real World.

Van Rijn

23-December-2008, 07:58 AM

It also doesn't mean we can claim that people are "responsible" for misfortunes when they acted to help others.

So, are you agreeing with me that, in court, people shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility for any of their actions?

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 08:17 AM

So, are you agreeing with me that, in court, people shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility for any of their actions?

No.

I am saying that in court, we need to remember that placing responsibility on people is completely and invented notion.
How far can we carry the burden of responsibility?

If you helped the man up from the cliff and he sued you for his injured arm and subsequent lost wages...

Can you turn around and sue your father for having taught you to help others in need and therefor is responsible for creating you into the criminal you now are?

Van Rijn

23-December-2008, 08:42 AM

No.

Okay, so your position is that nobody is ever to bear responsibility for their actions in court. So, what's your alternative? Do it yourself "justice"?

Jeff Root

23-December-2008, 08:55 AM

Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and
yanked her out "like a rag doll."

"Like a rag doll"?
Sure. It is how the woman felt. It sounds like she had a severe neck
injury with spinal cord damage. She wouldn't be able to use her muscles
effectively. Anyone moving her without preventing her head and limbs
from flopping around would make her feel like a rag doll. And probably
look like a rag doll, too.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 09:14 AM

Bold Mine:
Okay, so your position is that nobody is ever to bear responsibility for their actions in court. So, what's your alternative? Do it yourself "justice"?

Is that what I said at all?
This is the second time you have put a black and white stance and completely changed everything I have said into something else.
In this thread anyway. It's not the first time ever. In fact, it's a very bad habit of yours.
The first time in this thread was Here:
I think it is a bit more than that - a mechanism to keep disputes relatively controlled, rather than in an anarchist setting. Are you arguing against civil court in general?

Van Rijn I can only debate the topic with you if you cease putting words in my mouth, changing what I say or otherwise misrepresenting my position.
The other option is to just ignore you because your word changing is contributing nothing at all to the debate.
I have no doubt in my mind that it is a deliberate tactic of yours and it is not an endearing one.
Sure. It is how the woman felt. It sounds like she had a severe neck
injury with spinal cord damage. She wouldn't be able to use her muscles
effectively. Anyone moving her without preventing her head and limbs
from flopping around would make her feel like a rag doll. And probably
look like a rag doll, too.

Ok So What?

If I was out in freezing cold and a guy came along and touched my hand and it felt like an Ice pick went through my hand, that does not mean I can claim the man put an ice pick through my hand.

geonuc

23-December-2008, 09:23 AM

You know.. It's funny.

The whole point of this manmade invention of Suing other people.. is to make a person "responsible" for when things go wrong.

Why then, are so many lawsuits so irresponsible?
The vast majority of lawsuits are legitimate efforts to seek redress of injuries - the exceptions are those that tend to make the news. The notion of personal responsibility is not new.

I'm sure you are aware of the usual method for seeking redress prior to the "invention" of lawsuits?

We have laws in this country and in all of the countries I'd consider civilized. The courtroom is the preferred venue for resolving conflicts arising from those laws.

This thread is about a court decision establishing the intent of a statute, not the actions of the defendant. Moreover, expressing a legitimate opinion as to whether rescuers should be held liable after the facts are aired in a court of law, is fine, although still off-topic. Please don't turn it into a rant about the legitimacy of lawsuits in general. Start a new thread if you want to go in that direction.

Jeff Root

23-December-2008, 09:27 AM

Van Rijn,

The questions of whether the woman had a correct understanding of the
situation, used good judgement, took appropriate action, or actually helped
or hurt the car-crash victim are completely irrelevant to the Supreme Court
decision, which is the subject of this thread. The questions you raise are
interesting in their own right, but have no bearing on the interpretation of
the law in question.

The subject of the thread is whether the California Supreme Court screwed
up by voting 4-3 to interpret "emergency care" as meaning "emergency
medical care" in the applicable law.

Related questions include:

WHY did the majority of the Supreme Court judges vote that way?
Did the Supreme Court attempt to change the law?
What are the consequences of their having done so?
What will happen next?
Was the law poorly written?
If so, should the deficiency have been caught?
How could the law be improved?
Were the crash victim's injuries exacerbated by the rescuer's actions?
Did the rescuer act reasonably?
What were her intentions?
Should good intentions be punished when someone gets hurt?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 09:37 AM

The vast majority of lawsuits are legitimate efforts to seek redress of injuries - the exceptions are those that tend to make the news. The notion of personal responsibility is not new.
Personal Responsibility is perfectly legitimate.
The issue is, what happens when others overstep their bounds in trying to determine who bears liability?
I'm sure you are aware of the usual method for seeking redress prior to the "invention" of lawsuits?
Red herring.
Those methods prior to the modern court were nonsesnsical too, but STILL a manmade invention, jsut as the Modern Court is.

If a leopard attacks a gazelle and devours it, leaving the gazelles young orphans, do the young gazelle have any option of holding the leopard to Personal Responsibility for the grievance?
The NATURAL way is for Personal Responsibility to fall on the VICTIM alone.

Humans decided that we can, we have the ability, to analyze far beyond other animals, with our intellect and our morality judgments. We can "enforce" the prosecution of one who does harm.
However, it's a manmade invention. It's contrary to the natural way and since it always will be, it will also always be imperfect and stunted.

We have laws in this country and in all of the countries I'd consider civilized. The courtroom is the preferred venue for resolving conflicts arising from those laws.
Preferred by whom?
Contrary to what you said before, MOST conflicts are resolved out of court. The court becomes necessary only when individuals seem unable to resolve between themselves.
In Modern Days, it's become an excuse to fearmonger, then settle out of court for a lot of money.

This thread is about a court decision establishing the intent of a statute, not the actions of the defendant. Moreover, expressing a legitimate opinion as to whether rescuers should be held liable after the facts are aired in a court of law, is fine, although still off-topic. Please don't turn it into a rant about the legitimacy of lawsuits in general. Start a new thread if you want to go in that direction.

I have Hardly started a rant about the legitimacy of lawsuits in general.
Are you reading my posts or Van Rijns perversion of them?
If I respond to general lawsuit commentary- is that me starting rants about lawsuits in general?
Give me a break!

After the facts are aired in court? Only in a Perfect World (Fantasy) are FACTS aired in court, Geonuc, and I'm sure you know better.
Tell me... How much expense and trouble and complete disruption of life is endured During the Time in which the "facts" are "aired" in court?

Van Rijn

23-December-2008, 11:04 AM

Is that what I said at all?

Yes. You complained quite strongly when I suggested that anyone should ever bear responsibility for their actions in court. You said, for example,

Your fantasy about "holding people responsible" has little weight in the Real World.

but when it seemed like perhaps we did agree after all, I specifically asked:

So, are you agreeing with me that, in court, people shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility for any of their actions?

And you said "no." I don't know how it could be much clearer than that. Perhaps you didn't understand my question?

This is the second time you have put a black and white stance and completely changed everything I have said into something else.

Weird. Every time I argued against a black and white position in this issue of responsibility, you disagreed very strongly. How else was I to take that?

Van Rijn I can only debate the topic with you if you cease putting words in my mouth, changing what I say or otherwise misrepresenting my position.

The other option is to just ignore you because your word changing is contributing nothing at all to the debate.

I feel the same way. It doesn't seem that we can communicate effectively. It usually works like this: I say something. You write an impassioned speech that seems to be half about what I wrote and half about something else. I try to make sense of it as best I can and respond. At this point, it's pretty clear the discussion is far off whatever topic we were originally discussing. You write another impassioned speech that is even further afield, often with complaints that I'm changing what you're saying. And it gets worse from there, if we attempt to take it much farther.

I have no doubt in my mind that it is a deliberate tactic of yours and it is not an endearing one.

I should be annoyed by that. I have pointed out before that I approach your posts quite honestly, and that I am by no means the only one you find fault with. I go to some difficulty attempting to tease out what you really meant. Sometimes there are things that don't make sense at all, and I either ignore those or ask questions, which are usually not helpfully answered.

I think you had a good idea about ignore. I think I will put you on ignore temporarily. I don't find your writing as annoying as some, but I have had enough of this accusation that my good faith efforts to understand your posts are some kind of "deliberate tactic."

geonuc

23-December-2008, 11:15 AM

...
Carry on, then. I'll limit my involvement in this thread to adding what I know about the law relative to the court decision.

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 12:01 PM

I think I will put you on ignore temporarily. I don't find your writing as annoying as some, but I have had enough of this accusation that my good faith efforts to understand your posts are some kind of "deliberate tactic."

Knock yourself out.
Carry on, then. I'll limit my involvement in this thread to adding what I know about the law relative to the court decision.
You too.

Jeff Root

23-December-2008, 01:01 PM

Is that what I said at all?
Yes. You complained quite strongly when I suggested that anyone
should ever bear responsibility for their actions in court.
Van Rijn,

Sometimes when you say that Neverfly said something, but express
it in your own words, as above, you say something *vastly* different
from what he actually said. That riles him. Quit riling him like that.

Neverfly,

You like puppies, don't you? So you put BBQ sauce on them?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 01:10 PM

Neverfly,

You like puppies, don't you? So you put BBQ sauce on them?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

A-1.

It's when puppies are done.

HenrikOlsen

23-December-2008, 01:26 PM

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 01:28 PM

Let's try it in simple steps:
A is sitting in a car with injuries, B pulls A out of the car, making those injuries worse.
Who made those injuries worse?
Who is responsible for making those injuries worse?
Can the one responsible be held responsible by a court of law to the extent that damages should be paid?

I think there isn't really a lot of vagueness about the answers to the first two and it's the third one the whole discussion is about, but several people have tried to see comments about the third one as being about number one or two and have been attacking each other based on that.

Intent makes all the difference.

HenrikOlsen- You neglected to mention that A was sitting in a possibly hazardous situation and B had pulled A from that situation in an effort to save her life- even if it resulted in injuries- it would not necessarily have resulted in DEATH.

And why is A suing B instead of suing whoever caused the Auto accident and causing the injuries in the first place?!
Or has A already done or tried that?

HenrikOlsen

23-December-2008, 01:39 PM

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 01:47 PM

That the situation was seen as dangerous doesn't change who chose to do the action and doesn't resolve B from responsibility, it may influence question 3 but to my mind not 1 and 2.
It is still B's responsibility to have evaluated the situation as dangerous and made the decision to move A.

B was the one who chose to act, therefore the responsibility for the consequences of that act is B's.

Oh Whatever!

You're saying that if as in the situation I gave Van Rijn, that if you came across a man hanging by one arm off a cliff and that arm was pulled out of socket and you pulled him up and saved his life- You SHOULD be held Liable for causing damage to his arm?
Suffer stress and complete disruption in your life?
Be out thousands upon thousands of dollars in fees and medical expenses for him?

According to the argument you just gave- your answer is YES.

Think about what a horrible rotten world this would be, HenrikOlsen, if that was how things operated.

It doesn't just influence- It absolutely makes a HUGE difference!!

Fazor

23-December-2008, 02:18 PM

Okay, I thought about this a lot last night as I was explaining this debate to my family. Here's the thing; this decision was just about whether or not a person should have automatic immunity when acting as a "good samaritan". Ignore the car crash and the injured party.

Should a person be released of all liability for their actions just because their intentions were good? That's what this case is asking. Personally, I don't think someone should automatically get a free pass; rather I think it depends heavily on what the good samaritan did and what the situation was. Saying that the good samaritan law applies to every act of "assistance" means that all future cases give the samaritan immunity no matter how stupid or negligent their actions were.

I know this was pointed out before; and even specifically to one of my threads, but it didn't really hit me until last night (hey, I never said I was the quickest crayon in the crayon-specific receptical).

Now, the decision that a samaritan doesn't have immunity from liability, and whether or not this particular woman is liable are two totally different things. Holding this woman liable for this particular action, I think, would be a huge failing on the part of the legal system (though not a suprising one). But saying that the case can be heard is not, in my humble opinion, a bad thing. Again; don't think of that decision in regard to this particular case. Think of it as a decision for every possible case.

SeanF

23-December-2008, 02:27 PM

Intent makes all the difference.
How do you determine intent?

Especially if you are arbitrarily prohibited from asking a jury to determine intent?

"Sure I punched him in the head. But there was a mosquito there biting him and I was just trying to make it better!"

"Oh, well, immune from lawsuit then!"

:lol:

Should a person be released of all liability for their actions just because their intentions were good? That's what this case is asking.
You know, this whole issue has caused me to rethink my impulsive support for "Good Samaritan" laws in the first place. :)

The issue here is that we're saying that - under certain circumstances - another person can, through their direct actions, cause you serious harm and you have no possibility for redress. I think it behooves us to make sure those "certain circumstances" are defined as explicitly and as narrowly as is feasible.

Fazor

23-December-2008, 02:42 PM

The issue here is that we're saying that - under certain circumstances - another person can, through their direct actions, cause you serious harm and you have no possibility for redress.

Exactly. And again; I know that's exactly what some of you have said from page one. Just took my mind a minute to articulate it in that way to myself. And SeanF's summation puts it most clearly I think.

Whether or not this particular woman is found liable is irrelevant. Do we want all people to be immune from lawsuit, if acting with "good intentions"?

And, as SeanF also noted, intent can be a difficult thing to establish. Again; seperate it from this particular case. Do we really want complete liable immunity to hinge on something as vague as "good intentions"?

geonuc

23-December-2008, 03:08 PM

Exactly. And again; I know that's exactly what some of you have said from page one. Just took my mind a minute to articulate it in that way to myself. And SeanF's summation puts it most clearly I think.

Whether or not this particular woman is found liable is irrelevant. Do we want all people to be immune from lawsuit, if acting with "good intentions"?

And, as SeanF also noted, intent can be a difficult thing to establish. Again; seperate it from this particular case. Do we really want complete liable immunity to hinge on something as vague as "good intentions"?
I believe you have now zeroed in on the essence of that part of the debate - what should the statute say? (it's a moot point as to what it does say as the CA SC has ruled).

Keep in mind that the statute is interpreted to give that absolute immunity to those rendering emergency medical aid. Is that a good thing? Dunno, but the legislature percieved that the risk of unintentional aggravation of injuries due to incompetent medical aid to be outweighed by the risk of people fearing lawsuits if they step in and try to help someone.

HenrikOlsen

23-December-2008, 03:11 PM

Oh Whatever!

You're saying that if as in the situation I gave Van Rijn, that if you came across a man hanging by one arm off a cliff and that arm was pulled out of socket and you pulled him up and saved his life- You SHOULD be held Liable for causing damage to his arm?
Suffer stress and complete disruption in your life?
Be out thousands upon thousands of dollars in fees and medical expenses for him?

According to the argument you just gave- your answer is YES.
Nope. You're considering my questions 2 and 3 as equivalent which they aren't.

If his arm got worse, I would be responsible for making it worse.
This is not the same as saying I should be liable, as I would also be responsible for not letting him drop.

mugaliens

23-December-2008, 07:08 PM

Given the information I've seen, it is not at all clear to me.

What the others saw was immaterial. Again, "for the witness to believe..." What did she see which made her believe the car was in danger of catching fire? Was that believe reasonable, based on what she saw? Regardless of what the others saw, is there any basis, any physical evidence, for what she saw?

Most people aren't aware than in many dangerous situations, most people don't see the danger until it's too late. Some never see it.

Take, for example, a very early morning stroll I was taking on the beach in Carmel, CA, with my 2 yr old son. Nice. Calm. Serene. About ten people are out on that entire stretch - relatively deserted.

Reference this graphic (http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d185/mugaliens/CarmelTsunami.jpg). My son and I was at the point closer to the shoreline, about 25 ft above the level of the ocean (it's a wide, very steep beach) when the water began receding, fast. People were just staring, as was I, then it hit me, I grabbed my son, and ran up the hill as fast as I could, the incoming tsunami washing about two-thirds of the way up the beach. I watched this as I stood, huffing, at the right point, which is, as you see, 54 feet above sea level. The wave had reach about 2/3 of the way up, close to 37 feet above sea level, compared with the 1 to 2 ft waves that morning.

The two individuals who were down on the shoreline, both joggers, were swept out a ways. Good thing both were strong swimmers.

Again, my point is that different people see different things. Perception isn't a science - very, very far from it. And to use the observations of others to discount the observations of the one who, to her, risked the possibility of being burned to pull the accident victem from the car, is just gross. It's very unscientific, violates everything we know about human perception (and the oft-lack thereof).

(emphasis added) So, apparently, there are other witnesses...[/quote]

That is meaningless, as witnesses are about the worst possible evidence when you're interested in getting at the truth of a matter.

Prior to this court ruling, it wouldn't matter, because Torti would be protected from civil action even if she was wrong. Now, her action is open to review in court.

And that's crying shame, as courts are known, far and wide, to make grave errors in judgement. This is one of those cases where a person's actions, provided they were reasonable, should be beyond question.

by "reasonable" I mean pulling the injured from the car instead of attacking her with a tire iron - obviously, the latter would be unreasonable.

Fazor

23-December-2008, 07:10 PM

And that's crying shame, as courts are known, far and wide, to make grave errors in judgement. This is one of those cases where a person's actions, provided they were reasonable, should be beyond question.
But that's what it gets back to. Are you really willing to give blanket immunity to all actions (with good intent) just because the courts sometimes make bad decisions? I, for one, am not.

geonuc

23-December-2008, 07:29 PM

SeanF

23-December-2008, 07:54 PM

This is one of those cases where a person's actions, provided they were reasonable, should be beyond question.
Except, of course, for the question of whether they were reasonable. :)

Neverfly

23-December-2008, 08:01 PM

Even bigger question: Does her being sued and possibly held liable seem UNreasonable?
It most certainly does to me.

Fazor

23-December-2008, 08:14 PM

Her? Yes. But again, we're talking blanket immunity for all acts of "good intent".

geonuc

23-December-2008, 08:19 PM

I'll wait for the facts to come out before making a judgment, if then.

Van Rijn

24-December-2008, 12:03 AM

How do you determine intent?

Especially if you are arbitrarily prohibited from asking a jury to determine intent?

"Sure I punched him in the head. But there was a mosquito there biting him and I was just trying to make it better!"

"Oh, well, immune from lawsuit then!"

:lol:

That's a good example. In this thread, I've sometimes thought about the bumbling Frank Drebin in Police Squad. This was a guy who could destroy a city block trying to save people with his "good intentions." Should a Frank Drebin be free from responsibity, just because he has good intentions?

You know, this whole issue has caused me to rethink my impulsive support for "Good Samaritan" laws in the first place. :)

The issue here is that we're saying that - under certain circumstances - another person can, through their direct actions, cause you serious harm and you have no possibility for redress. I think it behooves us to make sure those "certain circumstances" are defined as explicitly and as narrowly as is feasible.

Exactly. That's my concern as well. It's not a black and white issue - sure, there is the danger of frivolous lawsuits. On the other hand, legal immunity is something you want to consider very carefully.

HenrikOlsen

24-December-2008, 07:38 AM

Van Rijn

24-December-2008, 08:02 AM

What the others saw was immaterial. Again, "for the witness to believe..." What did she see which made her believe the car was in danger of catching fire? Was that believe reasonable, based on what she saw? Regardless of what the others saw, is there any basis, any physical evidence, for what she saw?

I'd like to know what the physical evidence is myself. If someone finds something, let me know. Hypothetically, what if there isn't physical evidence that points to imminent fire?

That is meaningless, as witnesses are about the worst possible evidence when you're interested in getting at the truth of a matter.

Then, are you saying that the defendant's statements are meaningless as well?

This is one of those cases where a person's actions, provided they were reasonable, should be beyond question.

If you're making a qualification, the person's actions aren't beyond question.

by "reasonable" I mean pulling the injured from the car instead of attacking her with a tire iron - obviously, the latter would be unreasonable.

Yes, the latter would be unreasonable. The question is: What else would be unreasonable?

SeanF

25-December-2008, 06:21 AM

On the other hand, the response could have been:
"Sure I punched him in the head. But there was a bee there about to sting him and I know he's allergic so I was trying to prevent him from going to into anaphylactic shock".

Still shouldn't make him immune, but should make the lawsuit come out the other way.
I'm not sure why. I don't think punching someone in the head is a reasonable way of preventing a bee from stinging him.

But it was, admittedly, a pretty-far-out-there hypothetical to begin with. :)

EDIT: And, of course, the argument has seemed to be intent. Doesn't that make the puncher non-liable simply because he thinks the victim is allergic, regardless of whether or not he actually is?

geonuc

25-December-2008, 11:48 AM

EDIT: And, of course, the argument has seemed to be intent. Doesn't that make the puncher non-liable simply because he thinks the victim is allergic, regardless of whether or not he actually is?
Probably not. See my post #130.

mugaliens

25-December-2008, 12:35 PM

Actually, mugs, what others saw is material. It goes to whether the defendant's actions were reasonable for a person in the circumstances. Other's accounts help establish what those circumstances were.

Eyewitness accounts have been proven time and time again to be notoriously unreliable. Here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)of the many cognitive biases which are replete throughout our human existence.

Second, a witness' lack of observation about something does not constitute evidence that it doesn't exist. That's a logical fallacy. There are many other logical fallacies which are commonly introduced as "evidence" in court for no other reason that because lawyers, while very adept at applying the law, are (in my experience) some of worst committers of fallacious argument on the planet. They seem to get by with it, however, as the opposing lawyer, and the judge, are usually no better.

With this issue, I do not think intent is dispositive. I'd have to review the California law on this to be sure, but I think what a person does is what counts, not what they believe or intend. Intent shows up more in criminal cases.

If that's the case, then everyone should think not just twice, but about twenty times, before they lift a finger to help anyone, as if, in so doing, they inadvertantly cause any damage whatsoever, they may very well be held liable, not only for the damage they caused, but also for "pain and suffering" and/or "punative damages," either of which can be an order of magnitude or more than the actual damage.

Is this really what we, as a society, wants? Do we really want to put up this massive barrier to helping others when others need help?

I don't believe it is! Yet if we continue down this road of ignoring intent, accepting eyewitness "evidence," and considering only the final result, that's what we'll have.

Explain that to your mother the when your father dies because several people who knew CPR stood by and did nothing out of fear of the legal retaliation.

If that's not enough, there are a slew of memory biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases), too.

Put simply, eyewitnesses are among the worst choice for "evidence."

geonuc

25-December-2008, 12:38 PM

I'm quite familiar with the limitations of eyewitness testimony, thanks. But you said the testimony of others at the scene is immaterial. It isn't.

geonuc

25-December-2008, 01:11 PM

If that's the case, then everyone should think not just twice, but about twenty times, before they lift a finger to help anyone, as if, in so doing, they inadvertantly cause any damage whatsoever, they may very well be held liable, not only for the damage they caused, but also for "pain and suffering" and/or "punative damages," either of which can be an order of magnitude or more than the actual damage.
I know you may be passionate about the notion that good samaritans should be immune, but you're going a bit afield here. How often do you think good samaritans have been found liable for punitive damages? I'd say never, as punitive damages are generally allowed only for reckless or malicious actions and the like, not for mere negligence. Pain & suffering is probably also not on the table. So, your statement that people "may very well be held liable" for these damages is reaching.

mugaliens

25-December-2008, 09:17 PM

I'm quite familiar with the limitations of eyewitness testimony, thanks. But you said the testimony of others at the scene is immaterial. It isn't.

My point wasn't that it was immaterial to the court proceedings. My point is that it was immaterial to the decision made by the person who pulled the other out of the car. That person saw what, to her, appeared to be a dangerous situation. She stepped into what she perceived to be that dangerous situation, and did a heroic thing.

Now she's fighting for her rights? :confused:

That's just plain wrong. :mad:

I know you may be passionate about the notion that good samaritans should be immune, but you're going a bit afield here. How often do you think good samaritans have been found liable for punitive damages? I'd say never, as punitive damages are generally allowed only for reckless or malicious actions and the like, not for mere negligence. Pain & suffering is probably also not on the table. So, your statement that people "may very well be held liable" for these damages is reaching.

I do not believe they should be immune. I most certainly believe, however, that determination in situations like this must be swift, and accurate, rather than dragged out for years in the courts.

I would also argue that in situations like these, when citizens are providing a vital service to the general populace, by volunteering their help in emergency situations, the public, and therefore the government which represents the public, should step in and accept responsibility for any damages, including financial, by proxy.

Thus, the only determination (here's what should make it swift) was whether there was an intent by the individual to harm the one who was trapped, or to help the one who was trapped.

The reason is simple - people sometimes make mistakes. If those mistakes result in damages/loss for the rescued individual, then compensation is due. But should that come from the Good Samaritan? Or should it come from the society as a whole, whom Good Samaritans serve?

This is the way it should work, and in some places around the world, it works this way, and very, very well!

When it doesn't work this way, when it works the way as it's currently doing in California, you have people scared to death to help for fear they'll either be sued, or they'll have the government itself drag their lives and livlihood in the balance for several years until they unplug themselves and get a clue.

This entire mess is predication on the false assumption that the way it's being handled in California is the best way to handle it. It's not. In fact, it's among the poorer ways I've seen and heard of this being handled elsewhere.

I'm curious as to what the others here who're reading this have to say about how the laws in your states and countries handle Good Samaritan issues like this?

sarongsong

26-December-2008, 01:08 AM

Another possible factor; the rescuer's judgement may have been impaired:December 24, 2008
...The two had been partying with friends when the vehicle...crashed...
Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-goodsam24-2008dec24,0,7435592.story)

HenrikOlsen

26-December-2008, 03:08 AM

Put simply, eyewitnesses are among the worst choice for "evidence."
So that the woman stated she saw smoke is providing untrustworthy evidence and her testimony should be disregarded.

Right, so we're back to her pulling out the other woman for no good reason.

You can't claim eyewitness testimony is unreliable only on the side you dislike, either it's bad on both or it's good on both.
Unless you claim one side has an stronger incentive to misinterpret what they saw, which in this case is even worse, as it makes the defendant's report more unreliable that the bystanders'.

Neverfly

26-December-2008, 09:14 AM

So that the woman stated she saw smoke is providing untrustworthy evidence and her testimony should be disregarded.

Right, so we're back to her pulling out the other woman for no good reason.

You can't claim eyewitness testimony is unreliable only on the side you dislike, either it's bad on both or it's good on both.
Unless you claim one side has an stronger incentive to misinterpret what they saw, which in this case is even worse, as it makes the defendant's report more unreliable that the bystanders'.

It's still nonsense however which way you dice it.

Whether or not there WAS smoke and fire, is irrelevant as to whether or not the woman had perceived that there was.

They were in an extreme and high risk situation.

They woman had only very little time to react. She made a decision (even if the wrong one) and took action.
When I was in the Army, I was taught that you make a decision and you STAND BY IT.
If you go changing your mind, you're not an effective leader. Troops cannot follow someone who is wishy washy.

Her perceptions may have been confused considering she had Just Been In a Bad Car Accident!!!

She acted out of the decent motive of trying to save another.

Ok, so she was wrong in this case.

It is a clear fallacy to assume that this woman is a Threat To Society by claiming that she will always be wrong in her judgments and go around blowing up the city trying to save it.

If she was wrong about smoke around the vehicle...

SO WHAT!?!??

What do you want? Perfection? It does not exist.

Sometimes people find themselves in hectic situations and must make split second decisions.
Sometimes they are imperfect and choose the wrong thing.

SO DO COPS, EMS AND FIREFIGHTERS!!! The so called professionals who we are almost expected to sit pitifully like crying babies and wait upon to arrive.

And we understand that those professionals have stressful jobs and make errors in judgment.

What is the difference between a her and a Hero?

The simple fact that the car did not catch on fire.

She assessed the situation, perceived further danger, and acted swiftly to help another in need.
Those are Heroic Actions.
Now... After the Fact... it appears that she was wrong in her assessment.

OH NO!
How DARE that evil, vile woman, that threat and burden to society DARE to make an error of assessing the situation in less than a second and try to save another?
Grab your pitchforks and Torches men!

HenrikOlsen, Van Rijn and others...:
Can you post with a straight face that you can perfectly assess dangerous and harmful situations and perfectly act upon them to assure the greatest good at all times?

Your posts are horrifyingly appalling.
You would smite heroic people just to satisfy some self righteous desire to PUNISH.

YET, just hypothetically... What if after that woman was successfully charged and caused to cover damages...
an investigator uncovered hard evidence that the car was, indeed, about to burst into flames, yet it narrowly avoided doing so by chance?
What then?
What about your error in judgment about prosecuting the woman?

Are you gonna say, "Oops, sorry about that?"

Van Rijn

26-December-2008, 09:20 AM

So that the woman stated she saw smoke is providing untrustworthy evidence and her testimony should be disregarded.

Right, so we're back to her pulling out the other woman for no good reason.

That was the point of my second question to Mugs (http://www.bautforum.com/1395214-post137.html) in this post (which, I note, has not been answered). I'd like to understand how he would like these things to be determined if testimony is to be ignored.

Neverfly

26-December-2008, 09:26 AM

That was the point of my second question to Mugs (http://www.bautforum.com/1395214-post137.html) in this post (which, I note, has not been answered). I'd like to understand how he would like these things to be determined if testimony is to be ignored.

he didn't answer you?
The shame...

Can you answer this Van Rijn?

How would YOU have handled the situation if you had been that woman, had seen smoke and had to choose what to do next?
Clock is ticking...

What would you choose to do next Van rijn?
Would you do Yoga and calm your mind so as to reassess the situation to confirm your fears? By then, that woman may catch aflame...
Would you get on your cell phone? Fifty other people around you already are doing that.
Would you yell, "HELP!"?
Would you plop down onto the pavement and cuddle your knees on your arms rocking back and forth and say, " I dunno what to do!!!"?

What would you do?

What perfection would you have supplied to the situation in that split second?

geonuc

26-December-2008, 09:57 AM

This entire mess is predication on the false assumption that the way it's being handled in California is the best way to handle it. It's not. In fact, it's among the poorer ways I've seen and heard of this being handled elsewhere.
I know this probably wasn't directed to me, but rather to the thread in general, but I'd like to state that I have made no such assumption. My involvement has mainly been to point out the legal problems and the misconceptions some people have with the way the law works, particularly California law, as that is the venue for this case.

I will also note that I try very hard to couch my legal statements in qualifying language, using words such a 'probably', unless I have done the research to determine the law more definitely.

Neverfly

26-December-2008, 12:16 PM

I know this probably wasn't directed to me, but rather to the thread in general, but I'd like to state that I have made no such assumption. My involvement has mainly been to point out the legal problems and the misconceptions some people have with the way the law works, particularly California law, as that is the venue for this case.

May or may not be directed at me, but either way it would qualify.

I seem to be assuming such, simply because California is one of those states that other states follow.

mugaliens

26-December-2008, 06:26 PM

So that the woman stated she saw smoke is providing untrustworthy evidence and her testimony should be disregarded.

Not in the least. Read on...

That was the point of my second question to Mugs in this post (which, I note, has not been answered). I'd like to understand how he would like these things to be determined if testimony is to be ignored.

I note, it most certainly has been answered, and in the post to which you posed your question:

...a witness' lack of observation about something does not constitute evidence that it doesn't exist.

The issue isn't ignoring testimony (your choice of words, not mine). It's realizing that either a lack of testimony that an event happened (smoke) or testimony that the witness didn't see it happen, doesn't not constitute evidence that it didn't happen.

Quick! Take this test! (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nkn3wRyb9Bk&feature=related)

No cheating! Take the test, first...

Now - how many of you didn't notice the lady with the parasol?

Just because you didn't notice it, does that mean it didn't happen???

Of course not. Yet the California courts are stringing a heroine through the justice system because she did notice smoke, while the others didn't, and took reasonable action based on what she noticed.

That's why this is wrong. This course of action, the woman's pain and suffering is being rendered by people who're apparently completely unaware of basic psychological phenomena, and rules of logic. The material written by the judges is overflowing with logically fallacious statements. A woman who took reasonable action based upon what she saw is suffering at the hands of a justic system which is indeed blind, though not in a good way!

Enough. I've already said my peace, here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/82640-california-supreme-court-allows-lawsuit-against-good-samaritan-5.html#post1395745) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/82640-california-supreme-court-allows-lawsuit-against-good-samaritan-5.html#post1395874).

mugaliens

26-December-2008, 06:31 PM

I know this probably wasn't directed to me....

Nope! I do value your input, though, geonuc - very much so. ;)

...California is one of those states that other states follow.

They do? :doh: We're doomed, I tell 'ya! Doomed!

geonuc

26-December-2008, 06:39 PM

I was assured that Doom would not arrive until 2012. :(

sarongsong

26-December-2008, 08:47 PM

...Her perceptions may have been confused considering she had Just Been In a Bad Car Accident!!!...No, she was in the second car.

Neverfly

26-December-2008, 09:35 PM

No, she was in the second car.

Good thing I said "may have."

mugaliens

26-December-2008, 10:28 PM

I was assured that Doom would not arrive until 2012. :(

Well, in that case, I've got three years of reprieve before I must start ringing the monestarial gong.

Van Rijn

26-December-2008, 11:31 PM

I note, it most certainly has been answered, and in the post to which you posed your question:

That didn't answer my question. The issue is about how we should treat differing witness testimony.

The issue isn't ignoring testimony (your choice of words, not mine). It's realizing that either a lack of testimony that an event happened (smoke) or testimony that the witness didn't see it happen, doesn't not constitute evidence that it didn't happen.

If one witness at a scene says they thought there was smoke, and other witnesses says there wasn't, how are you going to deal with their differing testimony? It still sounds as if you would have all testimony but the defendant's ignored.

Of course not. Yet the California courts are stringing a heroine through the justice system because she did notice smoke,

How did you determine she did notice smoke, imminent fire, etc.?

while the others didn't, and took reasonable action based on what she noticed.

How did you determine she took reasonable action? It seems to me that you're making a series of assumptions, and then are arguing very passionately based on those assumptions. But, you haven't shown why we should automatically accept all those assumptions.

Neverfly

26-December-2008, 11:43 PM

If one witness at a scene says they thought there was smoke, and other witnesses says there wasn't, how are you going to deal with their differing testimony? It still sounds as if you would have all testimony but the defendant's ignored.

To err on the side of "better safe than sorry" is not the same thing as ignoring testimony.

Moose

27-December-2008, 12:13 PM

how are you going to deal with their differing testimony? It still sounds as if you would have all testimony but the defendant's ignored.

If the sum of the testimony boils down to uncorroborated "he said, she said", one sides with the defendant. Always.

Van Rijn

28-December-2008, 07:48 AM

If the sum of the testimony boils down to uncorroborated "he said, she said", one sides with the defendant. Always.

Yes, but it isn't clear (at least from what I've seen on this case) that it is that simple.

Moose

28-December-2008, 01:08 PM

If one wants to conclude anything other than "insufficient to reject the null hypothesis" (siding with the defendant), one incurs a burden of evidence that hasn't really been met in this thread, and will have to be met when this does go to trial.

tdvance

28-December-2008, 09:47 PM

I noticed--but I admit I was primed--just two/three days ago I read something about how actors enter from "stage right" when they don't want to be noticed because there is a tendency (assuming audience members have the usual left-right brain dichotomy of functions) to not notice objects or people coming from the right (so the Brits ARE the ones driving on the wrong side of the road after all!!!!). They gave an example of a person in a gorilla costume entering a basketball game from the right and being missed by test subjects.

Not in the least. Read on...

I note, it most certainly has been answered, and in the post to which you posed your question:

The issue isn't ignoring testimony (your choice of words, not mine). It's realizing that either a lack of testimony that an event happened (smoke) or testimony that the witness didn't see it happen, doesn't not constitute evidence that it didn't happen.

Quick! Take this test! (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nkn3wRyb9Bk&feature=related)

No cheating! Take the test, first...

Now - how many of you didn't notice the lady with the parasol?

Just because you didn't notice it, does that mean it didn't happen???

Of course not. Yet the California courts are stringing a heroine through the justice system because she did notice smoke, while the others didn't, and took reasonable action based on what she noticed.

That's why this is wrong. This course of action, the woman's pain and suffering is being rendered by people who're apparently completely unaware of basic psychological phenomena, and rules of logic. The material written by the judges is overflowing with logically fallacious statements. A woman who took reasonable action based upon what she saw is suffering at the hands of a justic system which is indeed blind, though not in a good way!

Enough. I've already said my peace, here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/82640-california-supreme-court-allows-lawsuit-against-good-samaritan-5.html#post1395745) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/82640-california-supreme-court-allows-lawsuit-against-good-samaritan-5.html#post1395874).