No, not the Good Samaritan, but a woman in California who thought she was saving a friend’s life. Turns out that she was just drumming up business for trial lawyers. From the Los Angeles Times:
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.
Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
The case turned on the distinction between medical professionals (who are protected from torts stemming from emergency actions) and non-professionals, such as the unfortunately named Ms. Torti. It is the latter who are being told that if they try to rescue someone from a potentially life-threatening accident, they’d better be sure to lawyer up on the way home, just in case.
The issue here is not whether bystanders should stick their noses in when EMTs or other professionals are on the scene. The issue is whether someone who intervenes when there are no professionals available, and makes a good faith effort to help another person, can be held responsible if things go wrong. And things can go wrong, obviously–but does that mean that we want to discourage people from ever giving aid when it’s needed for fear of winding up in court and perhaps losing everything they have? I think Ed Morrissey of Hot Air sums up what this is going to lead to nicely:
The court has sent a signal to the people of California: don’t get involved. If someone’s drowning, don’t jump in the lake and save them. If someone’s trapped in a car that’s about to explode, sit there and watch the show. Just make a phone call, and who cares that it might be several minutes before an EMS team can make it to the scene? If you sit on your hands, no one can sue you for all you’re worth.
Well done, California.
(Via Hot Air.)
December 20, 2008 at 4:44 pm
There are a lot of court decisions that get the average Christian’s dander up for good reason. But pound for pound, this might be the most overtly anti-Christian decision to be rendered in many moons. The Good Samaritan parable is one of the preeminent parables of Christ, and this decision contradicts it not just a little bit, not just on the margins, but completely. I would hope that even in California, this decision will be recognized for the total affront that it is.
December 20, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The good samaritan, MS. Toti, must have an insurance policy of some sort. This is a favorite trick of the palintiff’s bar–sue as many people (with insurance) as possible so that the potential settlement pool is bigger. So Ms. Van Horne sues the driver of the car in which she was riding, and she sues Ms. Toti who was in another car. While we don’t have any information from the newspaper article, I would not be surprised to learn that she also sued the driver of the car that was following, in which Ms. Toti was a passenger.
This case has all the hallmarks of a case brought by a plaintiff’s attorney who can smell cash the way a shrk can smell blood in the water. The “victim,” a cosmetician in a department store is now deprived of the big bucks she was just sure to earn if she realized her “ambition to become a Hollywood makeup artist — a dream no longer achievable.” Good thing her ambition wasn’t to be a wife and mother–we know what the liberal courts think of that low return on investment option. She was “dragged like a rag-doll” from the vehicle.
I doubt that thsi case will ever go to trial. It will settle, and in an amount that is easily divisible by 3 (the usual contingent fee for the attorney is 33% of the recovery,) The “victim” will also pay for the costs of the action, including fees of experts who will testify of “experts” who will testify that the Legislature only meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued , and other “experts” who will opine that she would have been an Academy-award winning make-up artist worth millions for each manicure. Those experts cannot sign on for contingent fees, so they charge thousands for writing their reports, for appearing at deposition and for coming to trial to testify.
Yeah, poor Ms. Van Horne may have been better off if MS. Totu just left her in the car, so that her spinal injury would have been “aggravated” by a professional.
She wasn’t lucky, but her lawyer sure was!
December 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm
This story is sad. If she did nothing people would say — why didn’t she help her friend. She didn’t intent to cause more injuries. In the future, people will be afraid to lend a helping hand. That is why this story is sad. No winners.
December 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I find it ironic that this “victim” is not thinking of ways to show appreciation to her friend for helping her to survive the accident. It sorrowfully shows the selfish, greedy & narcissistic side of what we seem to have become as a people in this nation. The notion that the “victim” is not appreciative of still having a life at all is sad. One wonders if the “victim” is not aware that paralyzed people are productive, intelligent, industrious people too… particularly in the state of California where their rights to work & have normal lives is so staunchly protected. Sad to think that “judges” agreed it is ok for the “victim” to sue the one human who obviously cared for her immediate safety & her life in her time of need. Please, Lord, save us from our judges & from our stupider short-sighted laws.
December 20, 2008 at 6:57 pm
This is so tragic because the rescuer may have thought that the car with the victim in it may have been about to catch fire, so she acted immediately before the victim burned to death. “No good deed goes unpunished,” as the French say. However, isn’t there also some jurisdiction now where you can be sued for NOT helping someone in an emergency? I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere.
December 20, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I guess in case you witness an accident, after calling 911 you had better call your lawyer and consult with them BEFORE rushing into helping anyone. After getting 911 and your lawyer on the phone most things will be resolved anyway.
December 21, 2008 at 3:33 am
[...] up business for trial lawyers. From the Los Angeles Times:. The California Supreme Court ruled Read More|||When I consider stopping to help someone in the future, a lot of my decision making will be based [...]
December 22, 2008 at 11:13 am
I think she should have let the cry baby burn and fear for her life. Who is the injured party to say that she suffered worse because of the aid her friend gave her. Is the injured party a medical professional who was able to diagnose herself without equipment. What was her training? The victim needs to drop the whole “poor pitiful pearl routine” and be thankful that she is alive today. Because of this victim others may die because people will be afraid to help. The future blood of future victims will be on this persons hands. I am so disgusted by this un-christian like behavior. It’s nothing more than a nasty, selfish and petty way for the injured to feel sorry for themselves. The injured and anyone who supports her reprehensible crusade should be ashamed. Karma will repay them all for their skewed and inappropriate reactions to this act of heroism.