If you are driving in CA and see car in flames dont save?

rduhlir

The good samaritan law works like this:

You see a car on fire. You stop to offer help. The minute you offer help you must continue to offer help until emergency personnel arrive. And as long as you aren't doing surgery on the side of the road, all basic forms of first aid/CPR are covered. You can not accept any "reward" or "payment" for the help rendered.

So, if you stop to give CPR to someone, it covers you for when their ribs break in the process, etc... And you are covered regardless if you know proper CPR or not.

Most people will not do anything because of the fact that once you give help you must continue to give help until no longer needed.

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

It's a poorly-decided case with a very narrow interpretation of the definition of "emergency care." The defendant Torti argued that she wasn't providing "medical" care to the plaintiff, that the definition of "emergency care" was broad, and that she was immune from suit. Had Torti argued that she was providing "medical care" the outcome might have been different. I doubt it, though. The court made a big deal about the fact that everyone was drunk and high on pot at the time, so more than likely, they would have found a way to let the law suit go forward. Unfortunately, the way they ruled, they limited the protection under the Good Samaritan Law in California to "medical" care only. If there is no medical emergency, there is no immunity.

The court ruled that "emergency care" meant "medical care" under the statute's definition, and therefore, Torti could be sued for negligence based on the specific facts of the case. There was some argument as to whether there was an "emergency" at all and whether Torti should have pulled her from the car at all.

For what it is worth, the Good Samaritan Laws in most states are written very similarly to the California law, but they don't interpret the laws the same way. Two laws can be written with the exact same words, and two different states' courts could say they mean different things.

BeachIron

That's interesting I didn't know that. In Germany, it is required all Germans are CPR certified and the law requires you to stop and help. Every accident there were at least 2 cars one to stop and help the driver/passenger and one to warn other drivers to slow down. At least that's what I saw.

That's wonderful! I wish we did that here in the U.S. - but instead, people get mad at having to pull over for emergency vehicles.

sweeping untrue generalization is sweeping and untrue.

The laws would vary in different states regarding the Good Samaritan Law wouldn' t it?

Perhaps there's a California lawyer out there who could intelligently answer this question? I'm New York.

just for the record, what i was responding to was the part i put in bold. i find that statement to be patently untrue.

Yep. I agree with you. It is easy for people who aren't involved to make sweeping generalizations. Sometimes judges make bad decisions and sometimes they make good, but take on good advice that trying to help someone while high and drunk, and then ending up hurting them, isn't going to be viewed favorably by a court. But, I can't imagine that being a surprise to anyone.

cparter

Key elements you must understand:
1. Van Horn and the defendant were once close friends and drug heads together (pot, partying and drinking)

2. There was no immediate danger that the car was going to explode or catch on fire after traveling at 45 mph

3. The defendant lied and said she carried her with one arm supporting her back and the other one supporting her legs (that is difficult for a man and she said she did this)

4. Witnesses stated she frantically dragged Van Horn from the vehicle like a rag doll

Although there were plenty who saw Van Horn as an ungrateful friend, would Torti have acted this way if not influenced by drinking and mariguana? I would not based my deeds on her foolishness.

I would do the following:
1. If the victim was conscious I would ask for their consent

2. I would not careless drag anyone from an accident (but if there was a chance of us both losing our lives - self preservation stands first).

3. I would never go into any situation without full control over my facilities (since I don't drink or do drugs that is a given)

bloominheck

I have no understanding of the law and do not plan to be in California anytime soon. However, if I see a school bus on fire I would stop to help regardless of the law. If they sue me for trying to save children I will happily give them all of my worldly possessions.

I highly doubt that. You'd be just as put out and annoyed as the rest of us.

Let me word it for you like this: If I had to choose between giving up stuff and watching children die, I would give up stuff every single time.

Amen sister, I would too. I have been the first person to arrive at a fatal car accident involving teenagers. I stopped did what I could and I would do it again if the situation ever happens again. I pray that it doesnt tho.

rml_16

That's interesting I didn't know that. In Germany, it is required all Germans are CPR certified and the law requires you to stop and help. Every accident there were at least 2 cars one to stop and help the driver/passenger and one to warn other drivers to slow down. At least that's what I saw.

That's wonderful! I wish we did that here in the U.S. - but instead, people get mad at having to pull over for emergency vehicles.

sweeping untrue generalization is sweeping and untrue.

The laws would vary in different states regarding the Good Samaritan Law wouldn' t it?

Perhaps there's a California lawyer out there who could intelligently answer this question? I'm New York.

just for the record, what i was responding to was the part i put in bold. i find that statement to be patently untrue.

I have never been in a car where anyone got angry over it, but I see people NOT pull over or who will turn in front of them like they aren't there all the freaking time.

I don't know if they don't see or hear them. That's probably the case.

ldrosophila

I stopped to help someone who had a motorbike accident...I ended up getting mugged and I was lucky I wasn't raped...it was a set up...I'd help again...but only if I wasn't the only person there.

After what happened to me, I'm afraid my safety would come first.

OMG that's terrible...so sorry you had to go through that

ldrosophila

It's a poorly-decided case with a very narrow interpretation of the definition of "emergency care." The defendant Torti argued that she wasn't providing "medical" care to the plaintiff, that the definition of "emergency care" was broad, and that she was immune from suit. Had Torti argued that she was providing "medical care" the outcome might have been different. I doubt it, though. The court made a big deal about the fact that everyone was drunk and high on pot at the time, so more than likely, they would have found a way to let the law suit go forward. Unfortunately, the way they ruled, they limited the protection under the Good Samaritan Law in California to "medical" care only. If there is no medical emergency, there is no immunity.

The court ruled that "emergency care" meant "medical care" under the statute's definition, and therefore, Torti could be sued for negligence based on the specific facts of the case. There was some argument as to whether there was an "emergency" at all and whether Torti should have pulled her from the car at all.

For what it is worth, the Good Samaritan Laws in most states are written very similarly to the California law, but they don't interpret the laws the same way. Two laws can be written with the exact same words, and two different states' courts could say they mean different things.

good info thanks

ldrosophila

Key elements you must understand:
1. Van Horn and the defendant were once close friends and drug heads together (pot, partying and drinking)

2. There was no immediate danger that the car was going to explode or catch on fire after traveling at 45 mph

3. The defendant lied and said she carried her with one arm supporting her back and the other one supporting her legs (that is difficult for a man and she said she did this)

4. Witnesses stated she frantically dragged Van Horn from the vehicle like a rag doll

Although there were plenty who saw Van Horn as an ungrateful friend, would Torti have acted this way if not influenced by drinking and mariguana? I would not based my deeds on her foolishness.

I would do the following:
1. If the victim was conscious I would ask for their consent

2. I would not careless drag anyone from an accident (but if there was a chance of us both losing our lives - self preservation stands first).

3. I would never go into any situation without full control over my facilities (since I don't drink or do drugs that is a given)

Yeah I didnt get to read any of that information about the case...blocked here at work

Joreanasaurous

I live in California and have helped someone out of a burning car.. haven't been served yet.

42hockeymom

As a former EMT B - IT in Wisconsin, I can tell you that the Good Samaritan Law is more about offering medical aid. The way we were taught was that if you stop and render aid and injure the person, or even touch them without their consent, then yeah, they could sue you.

However, luckily, that's pretty rare. Yes in today's society there are people out there who are inclined to sue for anything and everything they can, but I don't think it's that common.

Now, here is an example: You come across a wreck, there is a person laying on the ground and the car is on fire, if you don't move that person, they will surely burn in the fire and probably die. But, you don't know the extent of their injuries and moving that person could injure them more and possibly paralyze them. Of course if you're a trained professional, you'd know how to move them safely but Joe Citizen probably doesn't.

So you move the person to safety, and yes the person is paralyzed, but was it from you moving them? Or could it have been caused from the wreck? That's something that's going to be hard to prove.

Usually dialing 911 is enough, first responders are on scene in a short amount of time. There are exceptions to this like in extreme rural areas, but usually there will be someone who can render aid better than the average dude. You may even be asked to help.

The problem with all this, is this: There is too much apathy in our world. Too many people see stuff and just go about their business, if we all would just stop and be a little more aware and care just a little bit more, we wouldn't have to worry about "Getting our butts sued off"