Don't try to be a good samaritan in LA any more

[torpid]

Thread title is misleading. Should read: Don't forcibly pull people from a car after a car crash unless they are in imminent danger in LA anymore.

I thought that was common sense. People who have seen medical shows should know this (not the other way around - no one who has ever seen an episode of ER or any other show would move someone with a potential neck injury).

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Jeeebus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
This person only made it worse.

I presume you know this because you are an expert in paralysis that has studied all the medical reports and has examined the lady in the crash?

You were also able to make a credibility determination as to who is lying based entirely on a news article account rather than listening to any testimony or reading any actual statements?

Why is litigation so expensive and why do we need lawyers?? Marlin1975 knows all.

I know moving a person with a spine injury will not make it better if they have not been supported correctly. Are you saying that is false?

 

[Pegun]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Repost here.


And the court did the right thing. Would you like it if someone beat you as they thought you were being electrocuted yet you were having a seizure? Or how about someone cutting open your kids throat as they saw it on a TV show once, etc? You would be ok with that right? They had good intentions in their mind when they did it.

Sorry but intentions do not clear you of reasonability.

You fail at understanding the Good Samaritan laws. The Good Samaritan laws were enacted to keep people from being fearful of being sued for "giving emergency help to a victim provided the person uses reasonable, prudent guidelines for care using the resources they have available at the time of the accident." The Good Samaritan laws are for people who have proper training in medical care but are bystanders (This does not include Medical professionals.) In other words, your Tracheotomy example was pointless because a bystander does not have that training. When you take any first aid, CPR, EMR, or Boyscout training course this is the first thing they teach you.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Pegun

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Repost here.


And the court did the right thing. Would you like it if someone beat you as they thought you were being electrocuted yet you were having a seizure? Or how about someone cutting open your kids throat as they saw it on a TV show once, etc? You would be ok with that right? They had good intentions in their mind when they did it.

Sorry but intentions do not clear you of reasonability.

You fail at understanding the Good Samaritan laws. The Good Samaritan laws were enacted to keep people from being fearful of being sued for "giving emergency help to a victim provided the person uses reasonable, prudent guidelines for care using the resources they have available at the time of the accident." The Good Samaritan laws are for people who have proper training in medical care but are bystanders (This does not include Medical professionals.) In other words, your Tracheotomy example was pointless because a bystander does not have that training. When you take any first aid, CPR, EMR, or Boyscout training course this is the first thing they teach you.

Facepalm.. and the person in this case did not have the training, let alone the mental capacity, to render aid properly. On top of that she had smoked weed and drank alcohol before she did this. That and witnesses testified under oath that the car was not on fire, smoking, and did not show any signs it was going to explode.

 

[Pegun]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Pegun

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Repost here.


And the court did the right thing. Would you like it if someone beat you as they thought you were being electrocuted yet you were having a seizure? Or how about someone cutting open your kids throat as they saw it on a TV show once, etc? You would be ok with that right? They had good intentions in their mind when they did it.

Sorry but intentions do not clear you of reasonability.

You fail at understanding the Good Samaritan laws. The Good Samaritan laws were enacted to keep people from being fearful of being sued for "giving emergency help to a victim provided the person uses reasonable, prudent guidelines for care using the resources they have available at the time of the accident." The Good Samaritan laws are for people who have proper training in medical care but are bystanders (This does not include Medical professionals.) In other words, your Tracheotomy example was pointless because a bystander does not have that training. When you take any first aid, CPR, EMR, or Boyscout training course this is the first thing they teach you.

Facepalm.. and the person in this case did not have the training, let alone the mental capacity, to render aid properly. On top of that she had smoked weed and drank alcohol before she did this. That and witnesses testified under oath that the car was not on fire, smoking, and did not show any signs it was going to explode.

So be it, in this situation the judge was correct based on witness testimony. Your sweeping generalizations are incorrect based on my points though.

Text

 

[shoRunner]

I hope she DIAF

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
and the person in this case did not have the training, let alone the mental capacity, to render aid properly. On top of that she had smoked weed and drank alcohol before she did this. That and witnesses testified under oath that the car was not on fire, smoking, and did not show any signs it was going to explode.

Further, defendant dumped the plaintiff on the ground right next to the car after dragging her out of it. If def really thought it necessary to get her friend out of the car because it was about to go boom, then leaving her on the ground next to the car would be a pretty puzzling safe destination.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
and the person in this case did not have the training, let alone the mental capacity, to render aid properly. On top of that she had smoked weed and drank alcohol before she did this. That and witnesses testified under oath that the car was not on fire, smoking, and did not show any signs it was going to explode.

Further, defendant dumped the plaintiff on the ground right next to the car after dragging her out of it. If def really thought it necessary to get her friend out of the car because it was about to go boom, then leaving her on the ground next to the car would be a pretty puzzling safe destination.

Yea I saw that at a couple places as well but could not find enough to see if it was rumor or true. The part I put above was listed in the case filed with the courts so based on that and the witness's I know she was on drugs and should have not even opened the door, let alone touch the person.

I think the whole car exploding was put out there after the lawsuit. Sounds like something a lawyer told her to say.

 

[Ns1]

yep, I'm just gonna continue walking from now on.

 

[Jeeebus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeeebus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
This person only made it worse.

I presume you know this because you are an expert in paralysis that has studied all the medical reports and has examined the lady in the crash?

You were also able to make a credibility determination as to who is lying based entirely on a news article account rather than listening to any testimony or reading any actual statements?

Why is litigation so expensive and why do we need lawyers?? Marlin1975 knows all.

I know moving a person with a spine injury will not make it better if they have not been supported correctly. Are you saying that is false?

I am neither saying it is false nor true. You are the one making the sweeping comment, based only on reading a news article account, that the friend made things "worse" by her actions. Unless you have some specific factual knowledge of the situation that the rest of us are lacking, your statement is as laughable as me saying that by moving her friend, she saved her life.

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Do some of you really not see both sides of the issue?

This is ATOT. Put yer blinders on and pick a side...there is no middle ground, no room for discussion. If you disagree with the heard you must be a communist, tree hugging, hippie worthy of a painful death.

I dunno, on AT that seems like it would be a compliment. (or is that just P&N?)

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Jeeebus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeeebus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
This person only made it worse.

I presume you know this because you are an expert in paralysis that has studied all the medical reports and has examined the lady in the crash?

You were also able to make a credibility determination as to who is lying based entirely on a news article account rather than listening to any testimony or reading any actual statements?

Why is litigation so expensive and why do we need lawyers?? Marlin1975 knows all.

I know moving a person with a spine injury will not make it better if they have not been supported correctly. Are you saying that is false?

I am neither saying it is false nor true. You are the one making the sweeping comment, based only on reading a news article account, that the friend made things "worse" by her actions. Unless you have some specific factual knowledge of the situation that the rest of us are lacking, your statement is as laughable as me saying that by moving her friend, she saved her life.

I read the court case (filed with the courts) and what was entered into the case. It is fact she has a spinal injury. By moving someone you can only make it worse, not better. This is one of the first rules you are taught in any first aid class.

 

[Tim]

:Q Surley this couldn't be in california?

 

[Jeeebus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeeebus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Jeeebus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
This person only made it worse.

I presume you know this because you are an expert in paralysis that has studied all the medical reports and has examined the lady in the crash?

You were also able to make a credibility determination as to who is lying based entirely on a news article account rather than listening to any testimony or reading any actual statements?

Why is litigation so expensive and why do we need lawyers?? Marlin1975 knows all.

I know moving a person with a spine injury will not make it better if they have not been supported correctly. Are you saying that is false?

I am neither saying it is false nor true. You are the one making the sweeping comment, based only on reading a news article account, that the friend made things "worse" by her actions. Unless you have some specific factual knowledge of the situation that the rest of us are lacking, your statement is as laughable as me saying that by moving her friend, she saved her life.

I read the court case (filed with the courts) and what was entered into the case. It is fact she has a spinal injury. By moving someone you can only make it worse, not better. This is one of the first rules you are taught in any first aid class.

You read "the court case"? Now what the hell does that mean? Are you telling me you've read the Complaint, the motion for summary judgment, the opposition thereto, and all of the relevant exhibits? Please link me to the summary judgment motion.

Let me explain something to you. There is a LOT of uncertainty with this case. I'm not sitting here arguing that she made Van Horn's back better by pulling her from the car... all I'm saying, which you appear to be too thick-headed to understand, is that you're claiming a factual certainty that she made it worse - which is an absurd statement to make especially in light of the fact that a judge's opinion on the matter is pretty clear that the relevant facts are in dispute.

This is from the appellate court opinion prior to this thing going up to the California Supreme Court... please again tell me what evidence you are relying on to form your most certain conclusions...

It is clear, from the papers filed by the parties in support and opposition to Torti?s
motion, that there are conflicting recollections about the critical events that followed the accident. Torti apparently removed plaintiff from the vehicle because she feared the car would catch fire or ?blow up.? Although Torti testified at deposition that she saw smoke coming from the top of Watson?s vehicle and also saw liquid coming from the vehicle, these facts were subject to dispute. There is also a dispute as to how Torti removed plaintiff from the car. Torti testified that she placed one arm under plaintiff?s legs and the other behind plaintiff?s back to lift her out of the car; plaintiff testified that Torti used one hand to grab her by the arm and pull her out of the car ?like a rag doll.?

Emergency personnel were called to the scene and plaintiff and Freed were
treated and taken to the hospital. Plaintiff suffered various injuries, including injury to her vertebrae and a lacerated liver that required emergency surgery. There is a dispute whether the accident itself caused plaintiff?s paraplegia.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
and the person in this case did not have the training, let alone the mental capacity, to render aid properly. On top of that she had smoked weed and drank alcohol before she did this. That and witnesses testified under oath that the car was not on fire, smoking, and did not show any signs it was going to explode.

Further, defendant dumped the plaintiff on the ground right next to the car after dragging her out of it. If def really thought it necessary to get her friend out of the car because it was about to go boom, then leaving her on the ground next to the car would be a pretty puzzling safe destination.

Yea I saw that at a couple places as well but could not find enough to see if it was rumor or true. The part I put above was listed in the case filed with the courts so based on that and the witness's I know she was on drugs and should have not even opened the door, let alone touch the person.

I think the whole car exploding was put out there after the lawsuit. Sounds like something a lawyer told her to say.

Actually i just re-read the court filing and the wintness's also said she put her down beside the car.

"Others testified, on the other hand, that there was
no smoke or any other indications that the vehicle might explode and that Torti put
plaintiff down immediately next to the car."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op.../documents/S152360.PDF

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: torpid
Thread title is misleading. Should read: Don't forcibly pull people from a car after a car crash unless they are in imminent danger in LA anymore.

I thought that was common sense. People who have seen medical shows should know this (not the other way around - no one who has ever seen an episode of ER or any other show would move someone with a potential neck injury).

Unfortunately this is not going to be the consequence. What's more likely is that ALL people will now have a second thought before helping anyone for fear of getting sued.

+1 for another unintended consequences by government action.

 

[Farang]

Good, we should discourage people who are not qualified to render aid from attempting to do so. Anyone who knows what they're doing can remained confident that they will not face consequences.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80
Unfortunately this is not going to be the consequence. What's more likely is that ALL people will now have a second thought before helping anyone for fear of getting sued.

+1 for another unintended consequences by government action.

Well let's look at the result if the SC ruled your way. A person then could

- get high
- get drunk
- see an accident
- drag a person out of a car causing them permanent paralysis
- avoid all liability

Instead, the court ruled that a jury will get to hear the case to determine whether or not defendant should be held liable. If she is found to have acted reasonably and in good faith, then she will be found not liable.

If the cost of preventing drunk high people from acting as superheroes who are legally protected from any and all damage they cause merely because they thought they were acting in the injured person's best interest is that a trial has to take place, well that's a cost worth keeping in the equation.

Make no mistake, that would be the effect of ruling in defendant's favor on the summary judgment motion. Every and all good faith rescue efforts would be immune from suit no matter the damage caused to the injured party. Such a ruling cannot comport with centuries of common law stating the opposite.