gator wrote:Zwak wrote:Woman pulls friend from car wreck. California Supreme Court rules that victim can sue friend since her actions rendered her a paraplegic.
Serious? Another case of "dumbing down of America".
Sorry for the delay in my response....
First off, like Texas, Minnesota's "Good Samaritan" law requiresyou to give assistance to an individual in need.
It is a petty misdemeanor for failing to give assistance-- but that is a criminal penalty-- and does not limit civil penalties from a victim.Minn. Stat. 604A.01 Subd. 1 (2008): A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person.
Subdivision 2 of the same statute, however, gives a general immunity for any acts or omissions for members of the general public who are "Good Samaritans". (note: does not include EMTs or those working for compensation)
A person who, without compensation or the expectation of compensation, renders emergency care, advice, or assistance at the scene of an emergency or during transit to a location where professional medical care can be rendered, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by that person in rendering the emergency care, advice, or assistance...
HOWEVER, the statute goes on that if the Good Samaritan "acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance", they lose that general immunity.
What does that mean? It means we could all potentially be liable if we don't act reasonably in providing emergency services.
That shouldn't be a threat-- really, it is just common sense. We don't want to reward the guy who screams "FIRE" in a crowded theater just because someone lit a match-- rather, there is a common-sense duty to take remedial actions commensurate with the harm that is presented. If you're on 35W and the car in front of you lightly hits the bumper of the car in front of them, you jumping out of your car, breaking their window and pulling the driver out into oncoming traffic which breaks their leg is likely not an appropriate response. But if that car in front of them is a Pinto (which have a history of blowing up on such bumper-taps) and there is a fire in that car, that action is probably appropriate. I realize this is an extremely gray area-- I think all courts and legislatures do-- but there still needs to be protection against the outlier/rogue rescuer who negligently or recklessly makes matters worse by their participation.
In regard the California case, a few notes: (1.) This Court did NOT award liability against the woman who rendered assistance-- rather, they said she must stand trial to see whether she acted recklessly or negligently in pulling the victim out; and, (2.) this Court was extremely split, meaning the judgment basically upheld the current law instead of "writing new law". In regard to (1.), there will be a trial now to see whether or not the woman was reckless or negligent in pulling the victim out-- that is an inquiry that looks at all the facts and circumstances of the situation, and would likely be adjudged by a jury of their peers. That means the victim will have to prove that the rescuer's duty to act reasonably under the situation was breached-- costing the victim the use of some appendages-- yet saving her life-- and have to convince a jury that THE RESCUER caused the damages, and, in essence, the situation that led to the damages. Does that seem likely? Seems to me the other driver may play a role in that situation, however, my guess is that other driver is underinsured and they've already gone that route and are seeking to cash in elsewhere...but I digress...
In regard to (2.) this is an affirmation that this area of law is gray and, on one hand we require a duty to help, but on the other hand we give them up if they act unreasonably. If there is any consolation, I think it would be very difficult to prove to a jury that someone acted unreasonably in an emergency situation outside of the clearly black and white situations as described above-- e.g. the 35W bumper-tap above.
I actually think this is a good area of law since it essentially requires us to act "reasonably". Often times in American law we have a minimum standard of conduct that is not punishable, but such minimum standard is less than "reasonable". I think that's where people get annoyed and disheartened with the law. While this California court sounds bad right now, remember that she isn't liable yet and the victim has about 10 more hurdles to go before they can sniff any sense of liability on the rescuer. Finally, evidence that the victim was paralyzed before the rescuer got there would sink that case right now. Period. And I am sure there exists some evidence that that could be the case.
I have sympathy for the rescuer for her legal bills, however...
or 
hole, just a somewhat heartless 
I swear I remember Barry Feld saying the polar opposite was the case...
I could paint that bridge for $4,999,999.99 - and I'd donate back the savings.
