- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
"A court in the United States has ruled that a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car can be sued.
The Supreme Court of California has declared that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care"
This reminds me of a case I heard about many years ago when a Diving Instructor was sued for ABH after attempting to revive a diver who had drowned. That suit failed in part because at the time the 'injury' was 'inflicted' the 'victim' was infact, dead and in part because no lasting damage was done.
This case is different in detail, but I wonder; had the rescuer stood by and the vehicle exploded or caught fire and the woman died, would her family sue for her 'negligence' in failing to act - regardless of the fact that she was under no legal obligation to render assistance.
Here's an extract from a random Google on 'Good Samaritan' laws:
"In some cases, Good Samaritan laws may also apply to people without medical training, who attempt to act for the good of the person who might reasonably die without intervention or treatment. For example, a GoodSamaritan pulls a person out of a burning car that has been involved in an accident. To not act would surely cause the person’s death, but acting might mean the car crash victim is then paralyzed.
In most cases, the person pulled out of the car could not sue his or her rescuer because of Good Samaritan laws, or simply because of good sense. If, however, the car is not burning and there is no imminent threat to the person in the car, moving the person could result in a lawsuit, since it is medically irresponsible to do so."
The bold being the elements being tested here. Did the rescuer act in good faith, or irresponsibly?
In principle, I's have to agree that rescuers have a duty of care, and alternative scenarios in this case were largely hypothetical at the time of the incident. Of course, the detailed specifics of the case are unknown; the rescue may have caused (or exacerbated) the debilitation, or it may have been caused by the initial accident.
I also wonder if the claimant had resisted attempts to rescue her (was she fully conscious for example, from the 'rag doll' reference one assumes she was) at the time, and is she now having selective recollection ...
The Supreme Court of California has declared that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care"
This reminds me of a case I heard about many years ago when a Diving Instructor was sued for ABH after attempting to revive a diver who had drowned. That suit failed in part because at the time the 'injury' was 'inflicted' the 'victim' was infact, dead and in part because no lasting damage was done.
This case is different in detail, but I wonder; had the rescuer stood by and the vehicle exploded or caught fire and the woman died, would her family sue for her 'negligence' in failing to act - regardless of the fact that she was under no legal obligation to render assistance.
Here's an extract from a random Google on 'Good Samaritan' laws:
"In some cases, Good Samaritan laws may also apply to people without medical training, who attempt to act for the good of the person who might reasonably die without intervention or treatment. For example, a GoodSamaritan pulls a person out of a burning car that has been involved in an accident. To not act would surely cause the person’s death, but acting might mean the car crash victim is then paralyzed.
In most cases, the person pulled out of the car could not sue his or her rescuer because of Good Samaritan laws, or simply because of good sense. If, however, the car is not burning and there is no imminent threat to the person in the car, moving the person could result in a lawsuit, since it is medically irresponsible to do so."
The bold being the elements being tested here. Did the rescuer act in good faith, or irresponsibly?
In principle, I's have to agree that rescuers have a duty of care, and alternative scenarios in this case were largely hypothetical at the time of the incident. Of course, the detailed specifics of the case are unknown; the rescue may have caused (or exacerbated) the debilitation, or it may have been caused by the initial accident.
I also wonder if the claimant had resisted attempts to rescue her (was she fully conscious for example, from the 'rag doll' reference one assumes she was) at the time, and is she now having selective recollection ...
