GOOD SAMARITANS BEWARE

It may come as a surprise that, in this country, there's no duty to rescue. But can you be liable for a botched rescue attempt? Leave it to the left coast to answer that question in the affirmative.

The California Supreme Court ruled that Lisa Torti- a young women who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle after bar hopping on Halloween- isn't immune from civil liability because she didn't render medical care. Torti allegedly worsened the co-worker's injuries by yanking her out of the car. The co-worker was rendered a paraplegic in the accident. The case turned on the interpretation of language in a California Health and Safety code that states "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.” The court majority said that legislation was meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with “reasonable care,” as the law requires. The dissent said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing “an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation” on protections for those trying to help. The dissenters argued that the aim of the legislation was clearly “to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid.”

Which side do you agree with? Should rescuing be left to rescuers trained to rescue? Ha. Or not? Take the rescuer in the case above. She apparently yanked the person out of the badly wrecked car. I think most people know that yanking or jerking a presumably injured person is the worst thing that can be done. But what if the car was on fire? I say better yanked out of the car then burned alive. This California ruling is why people dislike lawyers and, sometimes, the law. The California court curbed common sense and goodwill. And it punished good intentions.