R.I.P California Good Samaritan Laws... Cause of Death: Supreme Court Stupidity
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 21, 2008 4:15am CST
The people of the State of California need to have a Colonoscopy done on their Supreme Court "Justices"... it may the the only way to find where the morons keep their brains.
The Polyps investing the High Court in California are either stoned, stupid, or just plain illiterate. Either way, the incompetent pinworms have really outdone themselves this time.
Alexandra Van Horn was a passenger in a car that hit a light pole. Her friend Lisa Torti saw the accident from another car. Fearing the car was going to burst into flames, she ran to her friend and pulled her to safety.
Alexandra Van Horn ended up paralyzed, and believes she wouldn't have turned out that way if her friend hadn't have pulled her from the car "like a ragdoll".
I took the liberty of looking up the California Good Samaritan Law to see if the Court's ruling made any sense...
Here is what California Health and Safety Code 1799.102 (California's Good Samaritan Law) says:
"1799.102. 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 scene
of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other
places where medical care is usually offered."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=01001-02000&file=1799.100-1799.112
The court lied through their rotting teeth when they said that the Good Samaritan Law ony applies to people rendering medical care. But as you can see, the law plainly says, "renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency".
The ONLY mention of medical care is in the end, where it exempts emergency care rendered in places where medical care is usually offered.
This decision wasn't about whether or not Torti is liable for Van Horn's condition, it only allows Van Horn to sue her friend for damages...
But what it really does is pretty much kills the entire concept of a Good Samaritan Law in California.
The next victims of this total travesty should be the Supreme Court "Justices" themselves. If anyone sees them in an accident, be sure to let them die. Apparently that is what they want you to do for anyone else.
http://www.newser.com/story/45740/court-allows-suit-against-good-samaritan.html
4 people like this
9 responses
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
21 Dec 08
[b]Wotta buncha maroons. And that also goes for the so-called "friend" of the girl who was saved by her wonderful REAL friend. What a twit.
Just reinforces that old saying: No good deed goes unpunished.
I despair of "Justices."
Gad.
Maggiepie[/b]
2 people like this
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
21 Dec 08
[b]Yes. I'm sure there's a special circle of Hell reserved for The Ungrateful. Right below lawyers & bureaucrats....
Maggiepie[/b]
Maggiepie[/b]1 person likes this
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
22 Dec 08
Don't hedge, tell us what you really think. What I think is that the Supreme Court has made it impossible for anyone to be a good Samaritan and this will probably lead to a who cares about you attitude towards anyone in any situation. Your anger is justified.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
22 Dec 08
As if California needs encouragement for a "who cares about you" attitude! :~D
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
21 Dec 08
I'm glad you brought up the courts, because that's where the real problem is. We know that there are scumbags like this woman who would sue their rescuers. They're all over the place. The legislators in this country were intelligent enough to see this and put a stop to it by writing good Samaritan laws. When I received my certification for CPR and First Aid I was given a copy of the good Samaritan laws in Florida and tested on them.
Either way, California has failed miserable. I'm not surprised at all since they're well known for incompetent judges who are more than happy to circumvent the constitution on a whim. I hope that judge gets removed from the bench and the woman gets counter-sued by her rescuer. This kind of garbage really needs to stop before it ruins our country. You can already see the damage done by such things when a pedestrian is hit by a car and everyone stands around afraid to help him.
2 people like this
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
21 Dec 08
I'd never in a million years think of suing someone who saved my life. Especially not a friend which makes me think only one considered the other a friend. I'm conjuring up images of little girls carrying around their dolls, often hanging upside down by one foot and I just can't see the "rag doll" in this woman pulling another to safety.
Why didn't this woman sue the insurance company? Or did she and lost or won and has already spent the money? Even my lame liability covers personal injury protection.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
22 Dec 08
Oh, it happens a lot. When I was a paramedic, the service I worked for carried a $5 Million insurance policy on each of us against lawsuits.
There is a saying in EMS... "You're more likely to get sued that get thanked."
It isn't completely true, but true enough.
2 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
21 Dec 08
You expected an intelligent ruling out of California? 
I was stunned when I originally read the ruling...what morons they are...and unfortunately, innocent people will suffer in the future because people will be afraid to help. It's bad enough that doctors are hesitant to render emergency care at the scene of an accident because of stupid lawsuits...now everyday citizens will feel the same way. It's sad.
I was stunned when I originally read the ruling...what morons they are...and unfortunately, innocent people will suffer in the future because people will be afraid to help. It's bad enough that doctors are hesitant to render emergency care at the scene of an accident because of stupid lawsuits...now everyday citizens will feel the same way. It's sad.
@piniongrl (142)
• United States
21 Dec 08
I agree whole heartedly with the stupidity of this issue. I hope that if I'm ever in an accident and someone happens by they will help me and not fear litigation. I don't understand how the victim could bring this suit. Maybe she's just angry and needs someone to lash out to. I hope that it's a jury trial and they promptly return a not guilty sentence.
2 people like this
@HeavenUnaware (1757)
• United States
2 Jan 09
That is horrible!
Just for the record, it's happening in all states and not just California but somehow we get the brunt of the attacks and insults. If I did a search, I'm sure I could find a case like this one in just about every state.
Whatever the case, it's a shame that people who are trying to help end up in court being sued by the very person who's life they saved. Crazy.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Jan 09
Sad but true. My article here was specifically about one case... but it is one out of many.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
24 Dec 08
This is absolutely pathetic, atrocious, despicable, ridiculous - help me out here, I'm running out of adjectives! For one thing, while I'm by no means a medical expert of any kind it would seem to me to be highly unlikely the woman became paralyzed from her friend pulling her "like a ragdoll" from the car. I mean, she probably suffered injuries in the accident and possibly her friend moved her in a way she shouldn't have but she thought the car was going to catch fire and possible BLOW UP, for God's sake. These "Justices" are suffering from paralysis of the brain for sure, if they indeed even have any gray matter up there, or anywhere else.
Annie
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Dec 08
Actually, it is fair to say that dragging her out "like a ragdoll" could have been the cause of the paralysis. EMTs, Paramedics, Firefighters and other emergency workers take detailed steps during extrication to reduce movement of the spine.
She probably didn't break her friend's spine when she moved her like that, but if the spine was already broken, but hadn't severed any part of the spinal cord, moving her could have finished the job.
But even those of us who are trained and experienced in emergency extrication know that there are times when it is "life over limb", and even we might pull someone out, "like a ragdoll" if the situation warranted it.
To me the crime of the Supreme Court here isn't so much their ruling as their reasoning. They said that the Good Samaritan Law of California states that it only applies to medical treatment, when the law itself clearly states, "emergency treatment".
They are as illiterate as they are idiotic.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Dec 08
Yes, I understand she could have "finished the job" by pulling her out of the car the wrong way, I should have clarified that when I responded, but I guess I was thinking of "life over limb" as you said. Put it this way - if that had been me and the only person there to possibly pull me out of that vehicle was someone untrained in the proper technique of moving someone with a possible spinal injury I would hope they'd do what it took to get me the he11 out of there before it caught fire. The idea of suing that person would never even cross my mind.
I agree with you about the justices' reasoning, by the way.
Annie
1 person likes this
