Don't help anyone

[Shoshino]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/editor.../article/9758/

Good Samaritan faces lawsuit

A court in the United States has ruled that a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car can be sued.
The Supreme Court of California has declared that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care.

Justice Carlos Moreno ruled that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid. "If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.

According to the lawsuit, on 1 November 2004 Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that crashed into a lamp post at 45 mph. Lisa Torti was a passenger in a car that was following Van Horn and stopped after the crash.

According to Torti she feared the wreckage was going to explode and she therefore pulled her friend out. Van Horn has testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage ‘like a rag doll' and blamed her for her paralysis.

Torti argues that she should be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving ‘medical care' when she pulled Van Horn from the car.

Justice Carlos Moreno ruled that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

Im going to remember that, I always thought it was against the law to not render aid if you are able, but hey

[coineineagh]

That damnable lawyer culture in the states is just making things worse for everybody.

[Montresor]

If I ever go to California, I'll have to remember to have traffic accident victims sign a waiver before I'll help them.

Originally Posted by Shoshino

Im going to remember that, I always thought it was against the law to not render aid if you are able, but hey

It is a crime in Denmark. Probably also in the UK.

[Splunge]

I’m not familiar with the circumstances here, but it seems to me that the judge has only said it’s OK to sue. He's not ruling on the case, but just generally saying that calling yourself a good samaritan doesn't give you license to do whatever you want. Presumably, the injured woman still has to prove that:

1. the “good samaritan” went overboard in her attempts to rescue the woman, and
2. the woman’s injuries were caused by the other person, and not by the crash itself.

While I agree that, on the surface, it seems a bit silly, and is in keeping with the lawsuit-happy image that the U.S. has, I’m not sure that there isn’t some merit in allowing the case to go forward.

[Blackthorne TA]

Except that the whole point to Good Samaritan laws is to keep bystanders from being hesitant to help out someone in need. Allowing this lawsuit to go forward defeats the whole purpose of having the law.

[Taza]

If there's any justice in the world, the moron will suffer.

The moron in this case is the "Good Samaritan", who caused permanent neural injury by not having a clue about what she was doing.

Hey, if I amputated and cauterized someone's leg because it had a threatening-looking wound with necrosis - would I be covered by this law?

Answer: Hell no. It's meant to protect people who know something about medicine - and that's a damn good goal.

If you want to help me after a car crash and you're upset this moron gets sued - please don't. I don't want to end up like the poor victim, unable to walk.

[dmc]

BTA - what if I came by and pulled someone out through a broken window (the door wouldn't open) and the broken shards of glass lacerated the person so he bled to death? What if I pulled the person out by the hair, head or neck and did incredible damage to the spinal column.

I was trying to help (this assumes no intent to harm, just negligence on my part). Does that mean I am totally protected? Should I be?

[Blackthorne TA]

I don't know; should you be?

Would you like someone to stand by while you were drowning for fear you would sue them if they did something wrong like left you with a scar?

[dmc]

Realistically, I don't know the answer. I think, practically, that someone who is inclined to be a good samaritan is going to do it no matter what the law says. I think, also, that someone who is such an idiot that he or she kills or seriously maims the person he or she is trying to help maybe should not be completely protected.

[T2Bruno]

I read a little about this before. The injured woman had a potential spinal injury during the accident. The "good samaritan" decided to pull the injured woman from the vehicle -- with full knowledge of the spinal injury -- in a manner described as "like a rag doll." While the accident caused injury to the spine, the "good samaritan" severed the spinal cord. There was no pressing need to pull the victim from the accident.

In this case there was gross negligance on the part of the "good samaritan."

[8people]

Ignorence and folly should not be suffered under the pretense of good intentions if it leads to the suffering of another.

Smaritans should be obliged to call for assistance of a professional sort, taking ermgancy guidance where neccessary, NOT rushing in to appear the hero when something bad happens.

While I consider the "omg sue everyone!" culture abhorrant in most instances, this is a case I think there is a responsible party who should compensate the (potentially) irrepairable damage caused for effectively trying to gain buddy points.

[martaug]

Nope just stand back & watch them burn to death in the wreckage when it catches on fire.
When they yell at you to help them out, just tell'em "sorry, you want to sue us for saving your miserable a**. goodbye."

I don't think i could ever help anybody again after hearing about this crazy ruling.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Personally, I blame Hollywood for this. Why? In reality, cars don't blow up unless you hit them with an explosive device. Even if the gas tank is leaking and the gas is heading toward a fire, you'll likely get no more than burning (in a semi-controlled area). In Hollywood movies and TV, though, if a car hits a rabbit, the car goes up like a mini-nuke. With that in mind, I have encountered many, many people that feared a car would explode after an accident based purely on TV and movies. It's been somewhat burned into the American psychie that, if a car is hit hard enough, it blows up.

If the woman really feared the car would explode, she's guilty of being gullible and an idiot, but she did have 'legitimate reason to fear for the victim's life'. How that plays into things, I'm not sure, but I'm sure it does somehow.

[Taza]

Originally Posted by martaug

Nope just stand back & watch them burn to death in the wreckage when it catches on fire.
When they yell at you to help them out, just tell'em "sorry, you want to sue us for saving your miserable a**. goodbye."

I don't think i could ever help anybody again after hearing about this crazy ruling.

Please don't. Please, please don't.

I for one do not want help from one of your kind. Hollywood doesn't exactly accurately represent reality and spinal injuries are often irreparable. I'll rather take my chances with a burning car.

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 39 seconds later... ----------

Originally Posted by NOG (No Other Gods)

Personally, I blame Hollywood for this. Why? In reality, cars don't blow up unless you hit them with an explosive device. Even if the gas tank is leaking and the gas is heading toward a fire, you'll likely get no more than burning (in a semi-controlled area). In Hollywood movies and TV, though, if a car hits a rabbit, the car goes up like a mini-nuke. With that in mind, I have encountered many, many people that feared a car would explode after an accident based purely on TV and movies. It's been somewhat burned into the American psychie that, if a car is hit hard enough, it blows up.

If the woman really feared the car would explode, she's guilty of being gullible and an idiot, but she did have 'legitimate reason to fear for the victim's life'. How that plays into things, I'm not sure, but I'm sure it does somehow.

It's been tested by the Mythbusters as well. You need tracer rounds so that even a direct shot to the gas tank blows it up. And a burning engine doesn't mean the car is going to explode, either.

Cars can burn but you need a LOT to make them explode, and even then it isn't half as destructive as movies would have you believe.

[Carcaroth]

Interesting, I thought there was a legal requirement in Britain to give help - the "duty of care". However, from what I can find on T'internet, the duty of care doesn't mean that you have to give aid or be a good samaritan.

Under common law a person is under a general obligation to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that he can reasonably foresee as being likely to damage something or injure someone to whom he owes a duty of care. If there is a breach of this general obligation and damage or “loss” results, the person who has been injured or suffered property damage will be able to make a “negligence claim” for compensation. For a negligence claim to be viable, a claimant must prove that:
• a person has been negligent (i.e. has failed to take reasonable care); and
• loss or injury is suffered by some other person as a result; and
• the negligent person owed a duty of care to the claimant who has suffered loss or injury.

From what I can tell, rendering aid without having suitable training could leave you open to being sued.

[Chandos the Red]

Personally, I blame Hollywood for this.

Why, because people are too stupid to figure out that a movie may not represent reality? You are right about that part of it. But what is Hollywood supposed to do when people can't figure that much out on their own?

[starfox64]

But on the other side, if you didn't help and just watched them suffer and/or die... wouldn't they or their family sue you for not helping?

[8people]

Only for 'Malicious Negligence' If you are the only witness and do absolutely nothing you are held responsible. Same as if you refuse to call an ambulance for someone having a heart attack on your property or do not stay at the site of a traffic accident where you are involved or a major witness.

[Ragusa]

You know the one about the eagle scout who helped an old lady over the street, commenting: That ungrateful, wretched old hag didn't stop kicking and screaming even after she arrived on the other side ... but as I always say - every day a good deed!, no?

[Morgoroth]

The first thing taught on first aid courses around here is to immidietly call 112 (or 911 in US) when you come across someone who has had an accident, and not to do anything they don't advice you to do if you don't have the proper training. If you don't have the phone with you then go and get help. What you don't go and do is play a hero without any training since the chances are that you'll do more harm than good. Calling the emergency number and doing what you are told by them ensures that you don't get sued and you get proper guidelines on how to help. Therefore I think this lawsuit and sentence was completely justified. Playin a good samaritan is no excuse for being a complete idiot and doing harm to someone.

[The Magister]

It's sort of sad you can be sued for trying to help someone.

[Déise]

Originally Posted by Carcaroth

From what I can tell, rendering aid without having suitable training could leave you open to being sued.

I'm not 100% sure but I'm fairly certain that under common law systems what constitutes 'reasonable care' will be looked at given the level of knowledge somebody would be expected to have. When I was doing my accounting training it was often impressed on us that an accountant acting as a company director would be expected to recognise when a troubled company should just give up and file for bankruptcy at an earlier stage than somebody who had no financial expertise. Of course, in situations like this it may be decided that a lay person should know to wait for the professionals to arrive and take charge rather than jumping in themselves.

I would hope that most people would know that 1) seriously injured people should not be moved unless absolutely necessary and 2) cars won't magically explode for no reason. At the same time I don't think somebody should be punished just for being an idiot. I'd be very concerned if this lawsuit was to go much further, let alone succeed. Honest attempts to help others should not be punished.

Speaking as an accountant, I really don't understand what the plaintiff hopes to achieve. A severed spinal cord would result in a 6 or 7 figure sum for damages. Unless the 'rescuer' is a millionaire (we don't know but we can guess it's unlikely) how does she expect to get the money even if she wins? Most people would struggle to pay the costs of the lawyers' fees. Speaking of which, who is likely to get the bill for this? I've read that one of the reasons why the US is so litigious is that each side pays their own costs (in Ireland or the UK the loser will usually pay both party's costs). This was in relation to lawsuits against companies though, does it apply to cases between two individuals? Is the injured woman free to try her luck with the case or will she loose out if she doesn't succeed?

[AMaster]

Man. I clicked on this thread expecting to read lots of posts bashing Objectivism. I feel betrayed.

Originally Posted by Chandos the Red

Why, because people are too stupid to figure out that a movie may not represent reality?

I hate this attitude, mostly because it's so prevalent. What's implicit in this line of argumentation is that the subconscious is mostly irrelevant. I, ah, don't think that's correct.

I'm not saying let's blame Hollywood. I'm saying that 'people know it's fake' is not an acceptable rebutal to, "Let's blame Hollywood." Likewise, I'm not trying to single you out, Chandos. It just irked me for no apparent reason, and so I'm posting (hey...it's that subconscious again. Dammit! Why can't it leave me be?).

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Thanks, Amaster.
I had posted that in a half-joking, half-serious mindset. On the one hand, I do expect people to generally think before they act, even though they usually don't. On the other hand, though, seeing something 10,000 times in a movie, and having no actual experience with it yourself (I'm assuming the woman wasn't a car mechanic or something), those movies can really start to drill something into you, even if you know they're fake.

[Chandos the Red]

It just irked me for no apparent reason, and so I'm posting (hey...it's that subconscious again. Dammit! Why can't it leave me be?).

AM - Maybe you should not watch so many movies. Any media has a tendency to distort people's view of reality, and the more they watch, the more that view becomes distorted. But what "irks" me is that people have lost the ablility to think for themselves (if they ever had it to begin with).

In journalism they made us watch some Japanese movie, I can't remember the name, it's been so long now. There was an assault on a woman (I can't even remember the details) and everyone who was involved, or witnessed it, gave an account of what happened. But it was acted out in the movie, like a flashback of what happened, rather than just described as testimony. Everyone gave a different account of what happened, depending on the point of view. By the end. there was almost no way to figure out what really happened, everything had become so distorted, especially for the viewer of the movie. It was a lesson in the limits of objectivty. But also how our objectivity is limited by preconceived notions of how things are and how that colors our emotional reponses to an event.

I think what irks you about my comment is that the media intentionally manipulates and distorts reality; it sensasionalizes and exploits those preconceived notions we have about reality, and plays on those emotions for its on purposes - and does so blatantly. What irks me is that people let them get away with it. It's almost as if they want to be manipulated. It's all rather...strange.