I see, so we should maybe just ban all lawsuits because God forbid someone will have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves.
I hope this doesn't come across as snarky, as that is not my intent. However, you've obviously never had to defend yourself in a "real" lawsuit that meant high-dollar attorneys. I have.
Most folks don't have $50k lying around, and even if they did - that is a HUGE burden to put on someone if they legitimately are trying to help out. If I get sued for this, it doesn't matter one iota whether I win or lose - I already have lost my house, car, likely my job due to court dates, and anything else I have of value. That's if I win. If I lose, I'm paying restitution for the rest of my life (afaik you cannot discharge restitution in a bankruptcy filing) on top of that.
I think what people are trying to point out is, that if there is ANY room for interpretation in a law such as this, you really *must* consider the lawsuit implications as doing otherwise is simply being irresponsible to those that depend on you for their lifestyle (kids, wife, etc.)
I think a lot of good points, for both sides were made here. This case isn't clear-cut, but that it has gotten so far in the trial process does concern me a little.
The way I (and a lawyer friend I showed this to) interpret the court ruling, is that Good Samaritan laws only apply to medical treatment (and possibly only to those actually officially trained in this area - such as first aide classes, nurses, doctors, etc.). I think everyone agrees physically moving someone out of danger (perceived or real) would simply not qualify. If the car is burning, and I simply pull someone out of it, I did not render any medical care whatsoever, leaving me open to a lawsuit if the person was a super prick. Hopefully, the court clears this up some and adds a provision of non-medical immediate danger assistance.
However.. In my home state (MN) this does bring up the Duty to Assist provision. Granted, the current court ruling only applies to CA, so this is a bit of stretch. However... If we assume other states will interpret good samaritan *only* as medical attention as CA did.. Then we have the interesting case that no matter which action you take, through no fault of your own you are potentially the target of a lawsuit. I openly admit that the chances of this are minute, and it would take a real asshole to sue you for helping in such a situation, but that does not mean the chance is not there to bankrupt you either way you act.
Duty to Assist generally only entails that you call emergency services and stay with the person until such services arrive. They aren't asking you to perform surgery if the person is bleeding or anything beyond your level of training.
I'm not so sure that is the case, as the law is written. It appears somewhat open to interpretation to me.
For MN, the law as-written states:
Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. 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. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
What is "reasonable assistance"? It only *may* include obtaining aid. It does not state that obtaining aid absolves you of the duty to further act. I think most people would say pulling an unconscious person from a sinking car with only minutes until it goes under is "reasonable assistance" - and conversely that calling emergency workers who are at least 5-10 minutes away is not since there was no reasonable chance they could make a difference.
Pulling someone from a burning car very likely falls under the "without danger or peril to self or others" sentence, so you're likely covered on doing nothing if you fail to act when a car catches fire. After all, it might explode while you're in there helping out.
I'm not arguing the merits of the CA case here. I'm simply trying to point out that when there is reasonable room for interpretation in a law, cases will eventually come forward to test it. I can see this CA ruling (if it stands) opening the floodgates if you will, where lawyers now that they see it's possible to strip someone of the protections offered by Good Samaritan lawss, thinking there is a reasonable shot at getting a settlement out of someone vs. spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in defending themselves.
Hopefully this all just remains conjecture, and no one is scumbaggy enough to really go after this. I do have to wonder what I would have done in the same situation though. I see a friend crash, I'm somewhat intoxicated (but obviously not too badly so, since I'm able to walk and physically move someone else), think I smell gas from a fresh car crash, and my friend is unable to move. Do I just let them sit? Or do I in my intoxicated state completely overlook the possibility of further injury by pulling them out of the wreck? At the time, I can assure you whatever action I took I would have felt was absolutely necessary to mitigate the risks as much as possible. However, would I feel that way the next day? Does being drunk absolve me of the Duty to Act?
Interesting questions, at least to me. Under this interpretation of the law, there was a very outside chance I could have been sued for some of my previous actions in helping others. Luckily nothing went wrong, so there was no incentive for the other parties to do so but I will say that I likely will give more pause to helping someone out in non life-threatening situations. That right there, in my opinion, makes this country a shittier place to live. Car broken down at the side of the road? Want me to push you off the freeway so you don't have to pay a few hundred for a tow? Fuck you. Call a tow truck, I'm not taking any chances of being sued if your transmission blows up. That sort of thing - the minor day to day things, really does suck and slowly eats away at what I feel makes this country great. Yes, I know these two topics are not directly related
Sorry for the wall of text.
-Phil