"…A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him."
- Luke 10:30-34
Was the good Samaritan rendering medical assistance or rescuing this man? Why does it matter? Well, the California State Supreme Court felt compelled to weigh-in on the matter and in the process have muddled our better angels in legalese.
The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.
The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.
Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
In the ruling, the court has made a distinction between rendering medical care and emergency response… which is now supposed to be left to the experts as the intent of the Health and Safety Code enacted in 1980 by the state Legislature was to protect those people acting in good faith who rendered emergency care at the scene of an emergency.
Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was "illogical" because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
And he’s right because one will not be legally protected from breaking the arm of that drowning swimmer but cracking that person's ribs while trying to revive that same person is protected behavior.
And Van Horn’s attorney is not helping matters any...
Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, disputed the notion that the ruling could have a chilling effect on laymen coming to the rescue of the injured. Good Samaritan laws have been on the books for centuries and state that "if a person volunteers to act, he or she must act with reasonable care," Hutchinson said.
"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car," he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion "irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.
The fact that “reasonable care” was determined to be found wanting and not merely a determination of “malicious intent”, we call bullshit on Hutchinson’s contention as attempting to determine a “reasonable” course of action in a potentially unreasonable situation will, as we see it, put a crimp in that whole “volunteers” thing.
G.O.P. leadership, NFL head coaches and the California State Supreme Court, sorely in need, all, of a crack upside the head from the common sense 2x4.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment