Don't try to rescue people in California

...the fuck?

I knew they had a budget crisis in CA but this is going a bit too far.

so if that last episode of Seinfeld took place in California, everything would have been just fine!

and yeah, what the fuck?!

I go out of my way to not rescue Californians. So: no biggie.

Good thing I let those children burn horribly in that school bus.

When I got my CPR certificate in NYC, we were told similar things. We were warned to be careful and really think about whether we should step in to help somebody.

I can see both sides. For many accidents, NOT moving people is safer for them than moving them. If someone isn't qualified to make that assessment, they should stay put and call an authority. On the other hand, if someone is really in danger (e.g., the car flipped into the river and they'll drown if they don't get out), then by all means people should step in and help.

A ruling like this, though, will certainly make people think twice about lending a hand though. And that's a shame.

Well, you could still help ... just make sure to escape into the night without being seen.

Hopefully this is all just an elaborate plot to get Tom Cruise to move out of state.

I think it's kind of funny (in a black-hearted way) that you're better off legally and financially taking pictures or footage of someone who's severely injured than trying to help them.

Would-be samaritans should ask victims to sign a waiver before assisting them. "I know you're on fire, but I must protect my assets."

Ultimately it's about whether people should take full responsibility for their actions, and I think the answer is Yes, even if you have the best of intentions. You shouldn't get a free pass for doing something good.

Genuine samaritans will accept the risk of litigation, because helping someone in need is the greater good and worth the risk of being sued. You're supposed to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing.

Just remember to mask your identity with a Batman costume. And growl in a gravelly voice of course.

Sorry, but that's ignorant. You expect people to help others out of complete altruism, at the risk of losing everything they have? How's the weather in Camelot this time of year?

Unfortunately, this is how our culture works. Every action taken must be measured against the possibility of being sued. Civil suits are the new version of winning the lottery or being discovered by a Hollywood agent. Everybody goes through life hoping that something will happen to them that will allow them to sue somebody. The whole system encourages it.

I'm an EMT, and I can you tell that this is complete bullshit. I'll give a scenario were someone could die because of this. If a person goes into cardiac arrest they still have enough oxygen in their blood for about fifteen minutes. If a civilian on scene is capable of performing CPR, which a lot of people are, blood flow can continue. If the EMS response time is long in the area, which it is in rural areas, then the CPR done by an uninsured citizen can definitely prevent death.

This why I alway speed up when driving pass La Conchita in a rain storm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Conchita,_California

You don't walk away. You assess the situation instead of acting rashly. Go over to the person. Ask them questions to see if they are alert/responsive. If they are, ask where they feel pain. If they say anything like legs, back, neck, its safer to leave them be and wait for a trained professional. If someone is unconscious and/or in imminent danger (flood, fire, etc.), then you should definitely act immediately taking care to make sure that you aren't causing any unnecessary damage.

I don't really know much about this particular case enough to comment one way or the other. I'm curious why the woman thought the car was going to explode when no one else thought so. I mean, unless you're in a movie, cars don't just explode, especially if its already crashed and come to a stop. The woman could have avoided all of this if she just calmed down and assessed what had just happened. My guess is she was too drunk to do so rationally.

Read the fucking article. You are still immune for rendering medical care. It's non-medical care for which you are not immune. CPR is medical care.

I almost feel like you can blame the Cal. legislature. If they wanted you to have full immunity, they could have said so.

Basically, if you're not a professional, don't risk giving incompetent non-medical care to people in California. And, to be honest, do you really want to give would-be good samaritans a blank check? Someone is in a car wreck, and you're allowed to drag them 100 yards away, regardless of their injuries? I'm not sure what balance should be struck, but good intentions should not result in absolute immunity. A good line would be recklessness. If you are reckless in giving non-medical care, you're liable, if you're "merely" negligent, you're not. There actually is a big distinction.

Every single person in this thread who whines about "winning the lottery," or "teh lawsuits are suxor," haven't sustained, or had loved ones suffer, serious injuries due to the recklessness or negligence of another person.

And that's important, because laws should always be passed from the point of view of emotional trauma and personal involvement.

You're right, it's much better to do so from a state of profound ignorance as to the realities of lifelong traumatic injuriesand the actual real-life cost of disabilities. People need to take personal responsibility for their mistakes and not blame injured folks for seeking compensation. Having some knowledge of what actually transpires in this arena tends to make you a little more informed.

Being compensated for injuries sustained due to the negligence of another isn't "winning the lotto" at all. If anything, it typically results in undercompensation (while, oddly enough, people with "minor" injuries are typically overcompensated).

So anyone who hasn't personally experienced a negligence-related injury is ignorant of the subject, and having experienced such a thing automatically makes one more knowledgeable than one who hasn't. Is that your point here?

I think his point is that as a lawyer in California, he has more accurate knowledge of the actual results of personal injury suits.

The thing is, this is probably a wise ruling. Note that they didn't actually award any money to the victim, just said that trying to help did not automatically disqualify the Samaritan from being sued (which has been the law, or potentially so a la' CA before this week, in many jurisdictions for years without do-gooders being sued into bankruptcy in droves). Basically, the court has said they will hear cases where the victim wants to sue a potential Samaritan. They do this because to do otherwise would create an umbrella of immunity that could kill large numbers of potentially valid lawsuits before they get started. The chances of a victim actually cashing in on such a claim are still quite remote; I think there's only been 1-2 successful suits against Samaritans in the country's history. There are plenty of legal issues that are like this (claiming self-defense in the course of being arrested is one that jumps to mind, or suing someone for purely emotional damages when there is no physical injury), where the burdens of proof against you are so high that you're almost guaranteed to lose the issue in court, but the judiciary doesn't want to close the door entirely on the odd valid claim.

Not that I don't understand the disagreements with the ruling, I'm just saying it was made for reasons other than to discourage people from helping their neighbors.

I really don't think that was his point, since he made no mention of being a lawyer in California anywhere in the post. And the insinuation was that going through something personally makes you more of an authority on that subject. Which is bullshit.

This is exactly the kind of kneejerk shit that I hate. Making blanket rulings like this without educating people about what circumstance good samaritan tactics should be used. Most people have no idea how to asses something like whether or not they should pull somebody out of might-blow-up-any-second car...how do you asses something like that when you work at McDonalds or fucking Best Buy? Responsibility without education. Give me a fucking break.

I've never quite understood why folks who have little to no knowledge about how the legal system actually works hold such strong opinions about what is fair, not fair, and who's "gaming the system." You don't see anywhere near as vitriolic a reaction against other industries. Well, actually people may have woken up to executive pay in the banking/financial industries, but it sure took a long time.

Everyone hates lawyers till they need one. Actually, they still hate them, but since they're desperate they let things slide for a while.

In California, seriously injured people (particularly if they're injured while on the job, in which case they have to deal with our abusive workers' compensation system) are systematically undercompensated. Folks with minor injuries, on the other hand, tend to be overcompensated. There are bad decisions all the time, and this may be one of them, but they aren't the general rule. If you guys think good samitarans should have ABSOLUTE immunity for their actions if they think they're helping someone, fine. I think that's a terrible idea, myself. Like I said above, recklessness, not negligence, should be the issue.

I've worked on both the Plaintiff and Defense side, and oftentimes what's fair isn't as clearcut as it appears on the surface.

Take a look at where you're saying this. You haven't seen vitriol leveled at the film industry around here? You're coming off a little self-pitying, if not arrogant.

therefore I am the most expert person in this thread.

"You didn't save my life! You ruined my death!"

I'll just stick to my current philosophy of "help no one, especially kids". Keeps me out of trouble. I kind of wish I was joking there, but really...I'm kind of not.

This nails it. I've done CPR classes, and the first thing you learn is to leave the person where the fuck they lay. You're risking serious spinal injury.

Guess what? You're not a hero. The best you can hope to do is keep the situation under control until a trained professional arrives. Don't get in the way, don't fuck around with what you're not prepared for.

Reminds me of that freaky urban legend. A motorcyclist wore his leather jacket backwards for it felt more comfortable to him. One day he was in an accident, thrown clear of his motorcycle and knocked unconscious. When the other driver found him with the jacket on backwards, he naturally assumed his head had been twisted around. So he grabbed the motorcyclist by the head and twisted, killing him instantly.


Of course, I don't know the other driver thought he could fix him by twisting his head the "correct" way.

I believe that happened just off the Toontown exit on the 101.

Heh.

I've seen footage of a rescue where a car was wrecked, on fire, and a group of men pulled a woman and her children from the car literally moments before an explosion. In this case, the article states that the rescuer said that she saw smoke and liquid coming from the car. Rather than sit around and wait to see what that potentially flammable liquid was going to do, she acted. Not saying that she's totally in the right, but if I saw smoke coming from a wrecked car, I'd assume that a fire was brewing.

She said that, but there's some doubt that she actually did see it. Nobody else apparently saw smoke or liquid. I think there's suspicion that she added that to the story to make herself look less hysterical and/or drunk.

...and if the car had exploded and that person died when they could have concievably been saved, what then? Tough shit?

I love how humanity and the law are so fucking far apart. Says a lot about our species.

In that case, if she just rushed in with no pretense, yanked this person from the car and caused undue damage, she's earned a lawsuit, but to allow a lawsuit free-for-all against all good samaritans is unfair, in my opinion.

Either way, I'm not stopping to help anybody. Call 911, sure, but I'm not touching a soul. Not only would a trained EMT do a better job than an inexperienced 23 year old, but I'm also too paranoid about set-ups and traffic accident scams thanks to too much Dateline.

This made me chortle for a bit.

As someone with absolutely no experience with such an emotional situation, Diva's explanation of it comes off best. The way I see it, the law seems like it should try its best to cover the most common and mundane situations. Outside of movies, how often does a car really explode? We aren't provided close-ups of gasoline dripping next to a sparkplug in real life either.

It's a heartless thing to say, but the law won't be able to save everyone. It can only attempt to do its best and positively affect the widest range of people. And from what people are saying on this thread about the law trying to keep inexperienced Samaritans from doing more harm than good, it sounds like that's what the goal is.

I don't understand why people think its one thing or the other. If someone looks like they need help, stop for Christ's sake. Immediately call 911 and wait with the person until help arrives. If it looks like the person is in imminent danger, then do what you can to remove that person from the situation but do so with caution. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Also, I kinda agree with Overlord in that the law isn't really all that bad. The law says people can put forth a suit, but it is still up to the plaintiff to show without a shadow of a doubt that the defendant's actions were the cause of their injury and due to their negligence. That's a really hard thing to do. Very few lawsuits will end up in compensation, me thinks.

On a side note car wont go boom if car is turn off. If you are worried that a car might go up in flames after an accident, just turn off the ignition. You should be able to turn off the ignition with out touching anyone in the car, in most cases.