California Supreme Court Green Lights Good Samaritan Lawsuit
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
Nope, its standard practice-didnt look at this example , but there are issues, regarding competency.
Crushed ribs, heart failures, broken sternums from bad CPR technique, throwing water on someone with a (still burning ) oil burn, moving someone with a broken neck and killing them, that sort of thing.
Would someone tell me what this ones about? I don't have a spare hour for it to load.
A group of people out celebrating one evening leave a location in two different vehicles. From the second vehicle, the occupents witness the first vehicle wreck - taking out a telephone pole while traveling around 45 mph. Seeing smoke and 'a liquid' pouring from the first vehicle, one of the second vehicle occupents pulls the driver from the wreckage (fearing the car might explode at any minute).
The driver of the wrecked vehicle sustains injuries which leaves her paralized.
She sues the rescuer claiming her injuries are a result of the "botched rescue efforts." Of course, the attorney for the rescuer insists the injuries and paralysis resulted from the accident.
California Supreme Court decides the case can go to trial.
This case appears (to me) to be the dictionary definition of 'chilling effect.'
- Spydertrader
I believe that the "Good Samaritan" law also applies to cases not having to do with an injury accident, but also to situations arising from cleaning-up toxic waste and pollution in the environment.
For example, let's say that there is an old gold mine in your county that continues to leak mercury from the mine tailings. The County decides to come to the aid of the public ( and owner of the property ) and commit funds to help clean-up the site . . . unfortunately, if the County goes ahead and does a little "clean-up" ( such as reinforcing a small damn that is part of a drainage pond that contains mercury-laden water and sediment, etc ), the County then can be on the "hook" for any continued pollution, bad drainages, etc.
As one can imagine, this can become quite expensive.
Almost anyone would have tried to grab her out the car in that state of panic. Logically though if a person can't get out of the car themselves than they are either stuck or paralyzed. Coming up to the scene it would be easy to tell the difference. If the person is indeed stuck than it would be very unlikely you could release them. If the person is paralyzed or showing signs of a spinal injury than by no means should the person be moved without professional medical care.
In all probability a non-professional medical caregiver should never make an attempt to move a person out a car after a wreck.
In all probability a non-professional medical caregiver should never make an attempt to move a person out a car after a wreck.
To me this looks like not an instance of friend A suing friend (good samaritan) B.
Insurance company A (Driver of auto) suing auto insurance of car number 2 that Friend B was a passenger in.
Probably they will find partial fault on the good samaritans act collecting from auto insurer of car number 2.
This will provide a larger settlment for woman who is paralyzed.
Shit happens, help people. Good trumps bad.
Insurance company A (Driver of auto) suing auto insurance of car number 2 that Friend B was a passenger in.
Probably they will find partial fault on the good samaritans act collecting from auto insurer of car number 2.
This will provide a larger settlment for woman who is paralyzed.
Shit happens, help people. Good trumps bad.
The car was on fire.