Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued

[JPINFV]

Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...n134850S58.DTL&hw=supreme+court&sn=002&sc=964

Something to think about for all of the Ricky Rescues out there.

It should be an interesting case since the prosecution is going to have to prove that the good Samaritan's actions caused the paralysis. On one hand the current accepted medical standard is C-Spine precautions. On the other hand, there's no real evidence to support the current medical standard.

 

[tatersalad]

this should be interesting

 

[rhan101277]

Well doing C-spine precautions helps to keep the cervical spine portion of the spinal cord from being damaged further. It doesn't keep the thoracic or lumbar portion.

This is why you have to be careful moving people. Unless wrecks are really bad around here or you think it needs it we don't use KED's much. But as soon as you can get them on the backboard and strapped in as safely as possible I guess its better.

But Joe Schmoe doesn't have a backboard, and I don't have an ambulance in my truck. I would help someone if I thought I could do it safely. I won't pass someone up just to let them die, cause I was worried about getting sued.

 

[Sasha]

Poor girl thought she was helping her friend.

You never know, she could have been paralyzed BEFORE the friend pulled her out from the crash itself.

 

[berkeman]

This would seem to be the key point in the opinion:

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.

Even under the Good Sam regulations, you have to act reasonably. The harder aspect of all this is figuring out what standard to use for "due care" and "reasonably" when referring to the general (idiot) public.

Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out.

I hate it when lay people yell at you not to go up to the MVA because it might explode.

 

[marineman]

Well doing C-spine precautions helps to keep the cervical spine portion of the spinal cord from being damaged further. It doesn't keep the thoracic or lumbar portion.

Please see thread linked below for the article I posted regarding C-spine in the field.

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=10260

Yes we still do exercise c-spine precautions as medical "professionals" however I have a hard time seeing that the good samaritan acted differently than any other normal lay person without medical training would have acted which should then be covered by good samaritan. Another case of somebody that watches too many hollywood movies thinking every car that's in an accident will explode.

 

[Markhk]

Well, a lot of people think the car is going to explode because of the airbag powder dispersing...probably there should be some educational campaign, "No, really, your car is not on fire".

JPINFV is correct...there increasing evidence that cervical spine precautions (at least the way we do it right now) may not actually do much for a patient, or might even make things worse. I mean, as it stands at the Trauma Center I interned at, the first thing they did when the patient got to the hospital was remove everything except for the collar...as if that was the most important thing (when in reality the c-collar is pretty lame at neck immobilization!). They just used a slide board and c-collar when taking the patient to CT and that was "adequate" even though most EMTs and medics would cringe.

 

[Ridryder911]

Well, a lot of people think the car is going to explode because of the airbag powder dispersing...probably there should be some educational campaign, "No, really, your car is not on fire".

JPINFV is correct...there increasing evidence that cervical spine precautions (at least the way we do it right now) may not actually do much for a patient, or might even make things worse. I mean, as it stands at the Trauma Center I interned at, the first thing they did when the patient got to the hospital was remove everything except for the collar...as if that was the most important thing (when in reality the c-collar is pretty lame at neck immobilization!). They just used a slide board and c-collar when taking the patient to CT and that was "adequate" even though most EMTs and medics would cringe.

The difference though, I presume they "cleared" the neck manually. Which is a normal attribute.

What research is finding out though is most injuries occur during impact and not afterwards as initially thought.

The shame is the effect it might have onto people not stopping at incidents; the good is people not believing television and all the B.S. it has presented. Something we as EMS need to start promoting ourselves. This is our Golden Opportunity to start promoting safe care and implementing professional care (EMS). Let's take this event and "run with it" promoting the need to know what to do and to be sure to call for professional help.

R/r 911

 

[BEorP]

Well doing C-spine precautions helps to keep the cervical spine portion of the spinal cord from being damaged further.

Could you please cite something to back this up?

 

[Markhk]

R/R,
I would love to know how they do it at other facilities. One of the patients brought it was a woman who fell 20 feet with bilateral femur fractures and when the trauma docs evaluated her neck, they stated they felt instability...so the collar stayed on, but everything else got removed. (After the CT, it did turn out there were several cervical fracture and she got put in a halo.) There just seems to be a disconnect between what EMS thinks is adequate "protection" compared to what some of the docs think. (Maybe the docs think that the hospital is more 'controlled' so the full package is not required?) As a paramedic intern, this particular case made me wonder what the standard of care is in other areas as well.

 

[mycrofft]

C spine is a large part of what EMT's were invented about.

NHTSA conducted many studies, including the infamous ones where they punched rhesus monkeys with pneumatic rams then post mortemed them, to establish that C spine injury was a frequent injury in crashes, and that it was very likely that extrication and perhaps transport without precautions could exacerbate injury potentially to the point of death. These sorts of injuries were reported to decline after the NHTSA recommendatins were adopted, which also included things like widening shoulders on roads, better lining of roads, seatbealts, safety glass standards, etc.
A more recent study found that in hospital continuation of full spinal precaution had no positive effect on pt outcomes if the pt was "cleared" at the ED.
Spinal immobilization such as EMS uses (collar, KED, LSB, SSB, SKED, etc.) is a measure taken for prevention of exacerbation of confirmed or likely spinal injury in the absence of radiographic diagnosis, primarily for extrication and transport to a site of definitive diagnosis and care.

 

[aidan]

Quick question (that I'm probably ignorantly missing): It didn't say in the article (at least I don't think?) that the girl beind sued for pulling her friend out is an EMT, or trained in EMS... is it just implied? Because if she didn't know about C-spine injuries and didn't know about good samaritan laws..how is this her fault? :sad:

Like, picture this scenario: you see an accident right next to you, the car is catching on fire and there is someone trapped inside - and you could (possibly easily) pull this person out of the car. However, you don't know about C-spine injuries..I don't know anyone that would just stand there while the car is on catching on fire and not try to save the person, especially if they are a friend.

 

[WuLabsWuTecH]

yeah, an emergency move might have been warranted in a situation where the car is on fire. from what I read I don't think she was an EMT but I could be wrong

 

[artman17847]

This case will have a far reaching effect on the general public when it comes to rendering aid to those that are injured or ill.

Imagine if this suit goes forward and the plaintiff wins. Will people now be hesitant to give help to the victim of a cardiac arrest for fear of being sued?
Thus erasing all the work that was done to show that fast early intervention leads to better outcomes.

Sad thing here is we have one "friend" sueing the other for trying to save her life.

Plaintiff will have to prove that the defendants actions were grossly negligent and were the proximate cause of her injuries.

There are to few facts to go on right now, but the plaintiff has what I think is a weak case.

 

[WuLabsWuTecH]

This case will have a far reaching effect on the general public when it comes to rendering aid to those that are injured or ill.

Imagine if this suit goes forward and the plaintiff wins. Will people now be hesitant to give help to the victim of a cardiac arrest for fear of being sued?
Thus erasing all the work that was done to show that fast early intervention leads to better outcomes.

Sad thing here is we have one "friend" sueing the other for trying to save her life.

Plaintiff will have to prove that the defendants actions were grossly negligent and were the proximate cause of her injuries.

There are to few facts to go on right now, but the plaintiff has what I think is a weak case.

That doesn't even matter!

Even if the case is a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, people will think, "Man, I can get sued if I tried to help right now. That was her friend that sued her. I don't even know this guy so he'll certainly sue me!"

 

[stephenrb81]

There are two points not being addressed here:

1.) The woman being sued had no medical training, that is what was used against her in CA Supreme Court

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.

2.) California's Good Samaritan laws protect medical professionals over untrained bystanders

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.

(Referenced from: http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/218144-good-samaritans-lose-in-calif.-court)

 

[bstone]

This is a good video from CNN with two attorneys, one on either side and listener comment:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/12/23/pn.samaritan.sued.for.rescue.cnn

 

[Airwaygoddess]

Would love to review that discussion

I'm trying to get the video link to open up but without much luck....:unsure: Can anyone get it to work? Thanks in advance!

 

[ffemt8978]

No problems with the video here.

 

[Airwaygoddess]

Well why not!!!!

Airwaygoddess is wishing FF a Merry christmas but still needs help with this link...... pouting..............