Good samaritan sued after saving co-worker

Calvin

Calvin

In Hazzard County
Super Moderator
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
13,291
Reaction score
2,546
If you thought someone was in a life or death situation, what would you do?

Well, one woman from Las Vegas is being sued after trying to help save a friend.

Action News Anchor, Tiffani Sargent shows us how Nevada's Good Samaritan Act may or may not protect you, if you try to help.

Some people are professionally trained to handle emergencies but in many cases lives are saved by Good Samaritans like, David Rhoades, who didn't think twice about helping some flash flood victims.

David says, "I don't think they would've made it if someone wasn't there to help them get out."

Still, the California Supreme Court now says Good Samaritans can be sued for their actions.

This, after a Las Vegas woman pulled her friend from a car accident, claiming she thought the car was going to explode.

But the car didn't. And now the friend is suing, saying because she was moved from the car, she suffered a spine injury and now she's paralyzed for life.

The case challenges the state's liability shield law, set up to protect people who give emergency assistance.

Meantime, we wondered if Good Samaritans are protected here in Nevada?

Scott Allison with the Clark County Fire Department says, "If they do choose to act totally on their own without any compensation of any kind, they are just trying to be the good neighbor, if they are able to save that person--if anything goes wrong with that person from that point forward, the Good Samaritan Law supposedly will protect them in a civil court of law."

However, there's a fine line when it comes to acting beyond your skill level.

Allison stresses, that, "If you arrive on the scene of an accident and don't believe someone's life is in immediate danger, than by all means, wait for the paramedics to arrive."

But, now, because of the California case many worry that others will hesitate to help, in fear of being sued.

One of the flood victims who was rescued by Good Samaritan, David Rhoades say, "If it hadn't been for David I don't think my daughter and I would be here."

The Las Vegas woman being sued did not return our calls.

However, Action News has learned that because of such strong "backlash" about the California Good Samaritan lawsuit, that lawmakers are considering re-writing the states liability shield law to better protect Good Samaritans from being sued.

Stay with Action News for any new developments on this case.
Click to expand...

Good samaritan sued after saving co-worker

Hmm, wonder if you would help save someone else's lives or not if someone would try to sue you if you did something wrong?

This is crazy, and sad for sure :(
 
Another article:

SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline)-Do not try this on your own.

That's the message sent by the California Supreme Court last week in a controversial 4-3 ruling that subjects would-be Good Samaritans to potential civil liability.

The court ruled that California law protects only medical professionals who attempt to care for someone in an emergency situation from civil damages, not those lacking such training that attempt to step-in and provide assistance.

According to court documents, the case stemmed from a 2004 Halloween night crash in which Lisa Torti pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle. Torti's rough handling of the victim, who suffered spinal injury, is believed to have contributed to her paralysis. The co-worker sued Torti for damages.

In 1980, the California Legislature enacted a law that states "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 results from any act or omission."

But the court's ruling Thursday written by Associate Justice Carlos Moreno clarified the law by writing the lawmakers in 1980 intended to protect "only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency."

The medical care, the court ruled, is designed to protect medical personnel with sufficient training to provide such care.

The dissenting judges argued that such a distinction places "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on people who try to help in a medical emergency. They furthered argued the intent of the Legislature in 1980 was to encourage compassionate response and help, not discourage it by the threat of civil action.

Torti had been in one of two cars who had been out for a night of revelry. The driver of the other car struck a light pole. According to court documents, Torti said she feared a potential explosion when she pulled her injured co-worker from the car.

But witnesses said Torti over-reacted to the potential of threat and roughly handled her co-worker, which in the end left her permanently paralyzed.

"Obviously this is a tough issue since on the one hand you want to make sure that Good Samaritans are protected while on the other hand you don't want obvious irresponsible behavior to be excused (e.g., I am sure we could find a case where a purely innocent victim was hurt by a drunken fool and thus merits some relief)," wrote Patrick Edaburn, a legal blogger.

But a University of Southern California law professor told the Los Angeles Times the majority correctly interpreted the Legislature's intent to shield health care professionals from being sued for injuries they cause when offering "reasonable care."

The message, the professor said, was emergency care "should be left to the professionals."
Click to expand...


Good Samaritans lose in Calif. court

The question is, whether you help them or not, end up being sued. This does not make any difference or help anything. This is really sad, and very whacked law for sure.

You can see some comments people posted below the article.
 
That's like saying, "If you're not good enough, don't help me! Leave me alone!"

I stand there and not help, she sues me for not helping.

I help, she still sues me for helping.

Make up your mind! :roll:
 
this world is too "sue happy." why the woman who sued her friend due to her paralysis isn't happy to be alive is beyond me. :roll:
 
In California where we have the Good Samaritin law; when certain aspects of this law are met regarding an incident, there's no suit forthcoming.
 
We have it as well in Florida. But you have to ask the person if they want help first. The only way we are protected if the person is Unconscious.

So, if a Victim is choking and you needed to perform the Heimlich maneuver. You ask if they need help. If they refuse. Nothing you can do. Just sit and wait until the person passes out. You can do something for that person at that time. Because then you are allowed to assume that the person wants your help because they are unable to change their mind.
 
Babyblue said:
We have it as well in Florida. But you have to ask the person if they want help first. The only way we are protected if the person is Unconscious.

So, if a Victim is choking and you needed to perform the Heimlich maneuver. You ask if they need help. If they refuse. Nothing you can do. Just sit and wait until the person passes out. You can do something for that person at that time. Because then you are allowed to assume that the person wants your help because they are unable to change their mind.
Click to expand...

BB, kinda sounds funny that a person would sue because you wouldn't let them die....:P
 
Tousi said:
BB, kinda sounds funny that a person would sue because you wouldn't let them die....:P
Click to expand...


Yes, It does.

You would be surprised by how many people have a D.N.R. (Do Not Resuscitate)
that actually do sue people because they were saved from death.
 
Babyblue said:
Yes, It does.

You would be surprised by how many people have a D.N.R. (Do Not Resuscitate)
that actually do sue people because they were saved from death.
Click to expand...

But I wouldn't compare a medical alert to someone flopping on the beach, lungs full of water as being the same thing!
 
Tousi said:
But I wouldn't compare a medical alert to someone flopping on the beach, lungs full of water as being the same thing!
Click to expand...


Exactly! That is why we have the good Samaritan law to protect us.

But if the person is unconscious then go for it. You are protected.

If a person is conscious. ASK. If they refuse then you have to wait until they pass out.

All I,m saying is for the Good Samaritan to ask first. If the person is alert. If they refuse then wait until they become. Sadly but true. The person has a right to refuse.
 
I'm not sure about waiting until they pass out first. The law would protect me if I didn't wait because of probably several factors ranging from "victim knew not what he/she was saying", to...by not waiting, the rescuer saved a few hundred thousand brain cells, etc, etc. :lol: I wouldn't wait unless the person was very combative....
 
Tousi said:
I'm not sure about waiting until they pass out first. The law would protect me if I didn't wait because of probably several factors ranging from "victim knew not what he/she was saying", to...by not waiting, the rescuer saved a few hundred thousand brain cells, etc, etc. :lol: I wouldn't wait unless the person was very combative....
Click to expand...


Well then you put yourself at risk of being sued. Due the person refused.

I agree about saving the brain cells. Like I said before, Sad, but true.
 
Plus it is not up to us to judge if a person refusing out of panic or simply not knowing what they are saying or understanding. That is why we have to wait until they pass out.

We can not differ that.
 
BB, re: all of those precautions thrown at me, I thought those were exactly why the Good Sam law would protect the rescuers?
 
They protect you if a person allows you to. or if they are unconscious.

I was shocked as well, when I learned that the Law Protects you to a certain limitation.
 
All the people ever care about is M O N E Y, it is why a " sue " is bein' involved. And, second of all -- dishonesty.

There's no " trust " in nowadays. Fear caused it. People couldn't afford to lose.
 
Maria said:
All the people ever care about is M O N E Y, it is why a " sue " is bein' involved. And, second of all -- dishonesty.

There's no " trust " in nowadays. Fear caused it. People couldn't afford to lose.
Click to expand...


Sad but true.
 
Back
Top