Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
Throughout the United States “Good Samaritan” laws are in place to provide legal protection for everyday citizens that choose to help someone that has fallen ill or is injured in an accident, whether roadside or at the office or any other place you could imagine someone needing immediate care. Under these laws you can’t be sued or arrested for “assisting,” as long as you’re acting within reason.
For almost a decade now, I’ve been CPR certified. During my last CPR certification renewal, I also completed a First Aid course that is good for 3 years. As someone who teaches in a gym, I’d like to be ready, just in case. I’m happy to report that it’s training I’ve never had to use.
But a California Supreme Court decision makes me reconsider my Girl Scout-esque preparedness.
A woman pulled her co-worker from a vehicle after a car accident on Halloween 2004. As a result of her injuries, the co-worker was left paraplegic. The woman is being sued for damages for her contribution to the injuries inflicted.
The woman and her lawyer fought the lawsuit arguing her Good Samaritan status.
The Supreme Court has sided for the injured party in a decision that could discourage people from helping those in crisis situations. Essentially, only the medical actions taken are protected under California law. So while you’re OK if you perform CPR or the Heimlich maneuver* or apply a tourniquet to gushing wound (knowing help is hours away), if you pull a person out of the middle of the road to administer that care, you can get sued for any damages caused by that act.
From a dissenting judge:
“One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim,” [Judge Marvin R.] Baxter wrote. “Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode.”
Instructors in the courses I’ve taken have always reminded students to follow several rules
- You never move the body when a neck injury is suspected; always suspect a neck injury.
- If the options are a) possibility of a dead body or b) move the injured body to prevent it from being a dead body, you’re better off alive than dead
Because of this legal finding, it appears I’m actually unable to help anyone unless they’ve fallen or landed out of danger and in a bodily position that doesn’t require much shifting before applying my first aid training. Moving a body won’t necessarily be protected as medical care, so I’d be risking civil liability.
Hopefully, the California State Legislature will redefine Good Samaritanism to include all non-medical action required to save a life. Otherwise, it seems that the only crisis safe to handle is applying adhesive bandages to paper cuts.
* The American Red Cross no longer refers to choking victim rescue as the Heimlich maneuver, but as “abdominal thrusts.” I’m told the Heimlich family wanted royalties for use of the name. Seriously.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
Comments
12.19.08
THhs is a good example of how the legal system works. People (conservative mostly) fault the legal system for legislating from the bench, but that only happens with questions of what is constitutional.
In this case, the law was not specific enough, so the court could not find for the defendant. The fault lies with the legislators, who did not write the law well enough to account for this situation.
I don't see this as a bad thing. It's unfortunate. But as my mom always told me, "life is not fair". Hopefully, the stat legislature will make it more fair, and perhaps the plaintiff will be fair to the defendant (but don't hold your breath).
12.20.08
Thanks Andrea for reminding me to look into this further. I saw this story on ABC nightly news last night and now have just read the following on their web site -
"The court majority said the 1980 Emergency Medical Service Act, which Torti's lawyers cited for protection, was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently." - http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1 . Really. Is this common knowledge?
Also from the same article - "Peter Keane, a dean emeritus and professor of law at Golden Gate Law School, said the impact of the court ruling will "be a bad one" and have repercussions in about a dozen other states that have Good Samaritan laws. " Why only a dozen states? What about all states? Evidently I don't have enough knowledge of the law in this country. This is a scary thought for me as we are a nation of laws.
12.22.08
scott,
If the plaintiff has held on to her lawsuit up through the state Supreme Court, I doubt she's going to be all, let bygones be bygones after the ruling.
Hopefully this ruling will encourage all states to take a look at their GS laws and tweak them for needed specificity.
I also worry about the lawsuits to come from people who want to go ahead and sue for lingering bodily damages after a rescue in recent years.
Mark,
Having been certified in CPR for so long, I can't remember not knowing that the GS laws cover laymen's medical training used in an emergency. GS isn't so you can do the bic pen tracheotomy you saw on ER, it's so you can perform any training you have in an appropriate situation.
But who'd pay for that kind of PSA campaign? Gov't is already strapped for cash for the basics.
I haven't followed up on Keane's quote yet, but I'd assume some states have already had legal battles of the coverage of GS laws, while others may have very explicit ones on the books already.
I don't think Washington or Minnesota have GS laws on the books at all.
12.22.08
Scott,
I find it interesting that you are faulting the wording of the GS law as not being explicit enough, rather than looking at the out-of-control trend of the American people to sue everyone and everything they come into contact with.
Why is it more outrageous that the GS law isn't adequate to cover this situation, than that the woman didn't have the character to thank her would-be friend for attempting to save her from possible death, even if it resulted in paralysis. No one wants to be paralyzed. Would she prefer to be dead?
I don't understand why more attention isn't given to the no-risk attitude that this trend of lawsuits inspires. If America wants to be safe from harm, stay home, don't drive, don't walk along a street, don't ride a bicycle, don't eat anything you haven't personally prepared, and definitely don't hang out with anyone you consider to be a friend, but would turn around and sue if they make a mistake!
12.23.08
@Reina: The point of the post was about the legal ruling, rather than about the plaintiff. So that is why I didn't comment on her action (I don't think the is doing the right thing, but then I don't know the whole story).
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
