California Supreme Court allows Good Samaritans to be sued

[ckroll 101]

California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care

The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car 'like a rag doll,' allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury.

By Carol J. Williams

December 19, 2008

Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.

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.

Van Horn was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Anthony Glen Watson, whom she also sued, and Torti rode in the second car. After Watson's car crashed into a light pole at about 45 mph, the rear car pulled off the road and driver Dion Ofoegbu and Torti rushed to help Watson's two passengers escape the wreckage.

Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."

Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.

Full Article in LA Times

[JCESU 20]

Only in the land of fruits and nuts...

[ckroll 101]

I was fascinated that a distinction was made in California between extrication and medical care. It caused me to reread New York Law with fresh eyes. It had somehow escaped me that good samaritan only applies to medically trained individuals responding to a medical emergency. How does that affect fire/rescue? If one is a CFR, then there is coverage, but if one is not a CFR or better, then how might extrication with injury play out?

I was working out of the hospital a few weeks ago when a patient came in improperly boarded and collared. The EMS crew's response was that the fire fighters had pulled them from the vehicle and onto the board. The person wasn't seriously injured, so the point there is mute, but fire does not formally train to package patients for removal from a vehicle.

If the California interpretation stands, then we should expect a lawyer sooner rather than later to bring the idea East.

[AFS1970 504]

I think the first time I ever heard of these laws, in a medical sense, was in a CPR class I took, before becoming involved with fire & ems. The general interpretation there was that CPR training was medical training, and such you were covered as long as you did not excede what was taught in class. I later heard this same interpretation in my EMT class. I would think however that someone with no medical training, like the general public is still acting in good faith, as long as they don't do something that goes against what they have been trained in, which is nothing, or that a reasonable person would know is wrong.

At the risk of being logical here, I think it is important to remember why these laws are called Good Samaritan Laws, it is from a biblical story, where a mugging victim was passed by and not helped by first a Priest, then a Levite, and finally when a Samaritan (which refers to where he is from, not how he acts) saw him, he stopped and treated his wounds and brought him to an inn and actually paid for his further treatment. I know it is not popular anymore to believe that most of our laws stem from biblical principles, but the story clearly shows that a passer by rendered aid, not a Doctor, or EMT, or other healer. Interestingly enough, the person who asked for a definition of Neighbor, and thus got the story of the Good Samaritan told to him was a Lawyer, and at the end he was told to "Go, and do thou likewise".

I would actually think that someone with training has more limitations under such laws, because they are bound by what they know will be harmful. If I pull someone out of a car by the shoulder or arm, and then everyone else agrees that there was no imminent explosion, I will have gone against what I know about spinal immobilization. Thus I am not being as Good as the Samaritan was. However I doubt that the department store cosmetics clerk has been trained in spinal immobilization and thus is only thinking about preventing injuries incurred in the potential fire & explosion.

As for Fire Departments not training in back boarding? I know in CT that MRT (First Responders) can not put people on back boards while EMT's can. Since most departments only train to the MRT level (although that is changing in allot of areas) they probably shouldn't even be doing this. I have however seen a few MRT classes where they go over assisting in back boarding a patient so the MRT's will know how to help with straps and securing the head, when they are working with EMT's.

[ny10570 745]

On the up side this will stop civilians from injuring people because they think steaming radiator coolant and airbag lubricant is smoke. On the other hand, what about when there is really fire? Once the person actually catches fire can you put it out or remove them from the fire? This decision is ridiculous.

[ckroll 101]

Section 3013. Immunity From Liability.

1. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any general, special or local law, a voluntary ambulance service or voluntary advanced life support first response service described in section three thousand one of this article and any member thereof who is a certified first responder, an emergency medical technician, an advanced emergency medical technician or a person acting under the direction of an emergency medical technician or advanced emergency medical technician and who voluntarily and without the expectation of monetary compensation renders medical assistance in an emergency to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such medical assistance in an emergency unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such certified first responder, emergency medical technician or advanced emergency medical technician or person acting under the direction of an emergency medical technician or advanced emergency medical technician..........

That's from Article 30. What law protects the general public? New York State may have legislation outside Article 30 that protects civilians. If anyone can quote it, that would be great. I am additionally concerned if what 'protects' fire service is the borrowed servant doctrine and their actions are considered as mine, then I need to be careful who moves/packages patients for which I will bear ultimate responsibility.

The biblical reference is excellent, but I do not know how much weight that carries in a court of law.

[Guest Local596Secretary]

Is this law meant to cover CAREER EMS or FIRE? The way I read it, it does not. Clarification would be welcomed.

[helicopper 1,050]

Is this law meant to cover CAREER EMS or FIRE? The way I read it, it does not. Clarification would be welcomed.

Article 30 applies to all EMS providers without regard to employment status. If you're an EMT it applies regardless of whether or not you're career, volunteer, private, public. For more information you can visit the DOH website at NYS DOH EMS Bureau website or contact your regional EMS council.

I think the EMS crew in the scenario described earlier was remiss in not correcting the immobilization problem prior to transporting. I don't envy their position but to leave something wrong seems worse than correcting it.

As for how this affects the FD (non-EMS), I don't think Article 30 applies to them or protects them (my opinion only, not legal interpretation) unless they are certified as EMS providers and even then it is a question if they are EMT or CFR but operating with a department that is not registered as an EMS agency.

In my opinion, FD should not be performing the patient removal following extrication; that is the role of EMS and a skill for which they are trained and equipped. As much as I hate to say this as it will undoubtedly start a ridiculous "who's in charge" debate, the highest qualified EMS provider on scene should be responsible for coordinating the extrication in conjunction with the fire officer on scene. This doesn't mean they tell the FD how to cut the car but they should tell the FD which patient needs to come out first or how they should be removed to minimize potential for exacerbation of existing injuries.

Finally, remember that this is a CALIFORNIA ruling and carries no weight here in the northeast (until it is used as case law in a similiar case here).

Enjoy the snow!

[ckroll 101]

Is this law meant to cover CAREER EMS or FIRE? The way I read it, it does not. Clarification would be welcomed.

To clarify the clarification, yes Article 30 applies to everyone, but the immunity from liability clause only applies to volunteers. Any compensation denies the provider protection from this law.

[RescueKujo 130]

In my opinion, FD should not be performing the patient removal following extrication; that is the role of EMS and a skill for which they are trained and equipped. As much as I hate to say this as it will undoubtedly start a ridiculous "who's in charge" debate, the highest qualified EMS provider on scene should be responsible for coordinating the extrication in conjunction with the fire officer on scene. This doesn't mean they tell the FD how to cut the car but they should tell the FD which patient needs to come out first or how they should be removed to minimize potential for exacerbation of existing injuries.

Finally, remember that this is a CALIFORNIA ruling and carries no weight here in the northeast (until it is used as case law in a similiar case here)

Chris (and others), here in the "land of fruit and nuts" fire is EMS and does the extrication and pt removal on TCs. While the transport unit is ultimately responsible for the patient, in most cases the fire medics are treating during the extrication.

Duane

[Bnechis 3,961]

To clarify the clarification, yes Article 30 applies to everyone, but the immunity from liability clause only applies to volunteers. Any compensation denies the provider protection from this law.

So if you are a volunteer that recieves LOSAP you maybe in trouble?

Interesting twist.

[helicopper 1,050]

To clarify the clarification, yes Article 30 applies to everyone, but the immunity from liability clause only applies to volunteers. Any compensation denies the provider protection from this law.

Is this opinion from DOH or your interpretation? The way it was explained to me, and this was many, many years ago, the expectation of compensation didn't apply to salaries and career EMS personnel were included in the immunity.

Thanks!

[helicopper 1,050]

So if you are a volunteer that recieves LOSAP you maybe in trouble?

Interesting twist.

Or any of the other forms of remuneration and/or compensation that volunteers receive for their service. Hmmm....

[x242Steve 1]

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer Paul Elias, Associated Press Writer – Thu Dec 18, 6:22 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – 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.

Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_...itan_protection

"Due Care", "Due Regard", "Negligence", etc. have all been discussed in various training classes that I have attended, and I was always under the impression that in a situation like the one mentioned in the article, civilians that come to the aid of other civilians are not considered to have a "duty" of any kind.

In this case, the Court seems to be saying that pulling someone from a car wreck does not qualify as "administering emergency medical care". While WE (EmergServ Workers) know when it is appropriate to pull someone from a car without full patient stabilization (Car fire, car on train tracks, etc.), how was this woman supposed to know whether or not her fear of an explosion was valid?

I just hope that, if the suit progresses, the "jury of peers" will consider what they would do if they came across a friend in a mangled car and they strongly felt that pulling that friend from the car would increase said friend's chanced of survival.

Edit: Just watched an ABC News video clip about this story also, and the victim is quoted as saying "I would have been better off if you had not tried to help me." While that might technically be true, hindsight is always 20/20.

Edited December 21, 2008 by 242steve

[Guest stephentyler20]

Perhaps, but the article says she extricated the victim "like a rag doll"! It doesn't take much common sense to know you're doing more harm than good to someone when you're treating them like that. I'm not justifying a law suit, but it does sound like this good samaritan screwed up royally. Too much information missing here, regardless. I could imagine a hundred possible justifiable scenarios for this event that could fit into the criteria of that news article based on how little information they provided.

[Guest EFFP411]

Article 30 applies to all EMS providers without regard to employment status. If you're an EMT it applies regardless of whether or not you're career, volunteer, private, public. For more information you can visit the DOH website at NYS DOH EMS Bureau website or contact your regional EMS council.

I think the EMS crew in the scenario described earlier was remiss in not correcting the immobilization problem prior to transporting. I don't envy their position but to leave something wrong seems worse than correcting it.

As for how this affects the FD (non-EMS), I don't think Article 30 applies to them or protects them (my opinion only, not legal interpretation) unless they are certified as EMS providers and even then it is a question if they are EMT or CFR but operating with a department that is not registered as an EMS agency.

In my opinion, FD should not be performing the patient removal following extrication; that is the role of EMS and a skill for which they are trained and equipped. As much as I hate to say this as it will undoubtedly start a ridiculous "who's in charge" debate, the highest qualified EMS provider on scene should be responsible for coordinating the extrication in conjunction with the fire officer on scene. This doesn't mean they tell the FD how to cut the car but they should tell the FD which patient needs to come out first or how they should be removed to minimize potential for exacerbation of existing injuries.

Finally, remember that this is a CALIFORNIA ruling and carries no weight here in the northeast (until it is used as case law in a similiar case here).

Enjoy the snow!

And just a little addition, The purpose of the "Good Samaritan act" is to cover providers in an off duty capacity, and extends out of your regional certification area as well. it has already been discussed i'm sure and we all know that when you are "On Duty", whether it be working, rostering a volunteer ambulance, you are still responsible for what goes on. The intention of this as it was explained to me many years ago by my CFR instructor is simple: say you are ar NYS EMT (irreguardless of whether or not you are career, commercial, or otherwise), travelling to florida, and you come across a bad wreck in Georgia on I95. You are not required to help since you are out of your certified area, and not on duty, but you do anyway. As long as what you did was not a witnessed outright negligent act, the possible poor outcome of that patient's health, further injury, and or death cannot be pinned on you. Because you are a trained professional, and assumed to have done anything and everything in good faith at that time. I wish i could maybe have explained it a little better, but this is how it was explained to me, by a very intelligent man in the EMS field.

Edited December 21, 2008 by EFFP411

[Guest]

This is gonna make more civilians not want to help

[ckroll 101]

Is this opinion from DOH or your interpretation? The way it was explained to me, and this was many, many years ago, the expectation of compensation didn't apply to salaries and career EMS personnel were included in the immunity.

Thanks!

I guess we're all in the same church, different pews..... the way it was explained to me is all I've got. As explained to me by the riff raff that hang out in ambulance corps, the wording 'without expectation of monetary compensation.' was interpreted to mean a jacket or a coffee mug or batch of brownies did not cross the line and that the legislation was phrased that way to allow gifts but not salaries.

As I recall, my volunteer corps had some heated debates with respect to buying jackets for members and then over LOSAP and a lawyer was approached for interpretation. There may be opinions of the comptroller and I will hunt that, but it takes time. Even that said, a law means what it means. Obviously one lawyer can argue it does and another argue that it doesn't and it is up to a court to make that determination. Until Thursday I thought a passerby could pull a person out of a car, but I don't anymore.

[ckroll 101]

General Municipal Law Article 11-AA 219 f. section

10. Payment of a service award shall not impair any rights of

volunteer ambulance workers under the volunteer ambulance workers'

benefit law or any other law.

I would take this to mean immunity from liability is not impaired by a service award, don't know about getting municipal health care.

From Article 30 Section 3001. Definitions.

As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Emergency medical service" means initial emergency medical assistance including, but not limited to, the treatment of trauma, burns, respiratory, circulatory and obstetrical emergencies.

2. "Ambulance service" means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, municipality or any legal or public entity or subdivision thereof engaged in providing emergency medical care and the transportation of sick or injured persons bymotor vehicle, aircraft or other forms of transportation to, from, or between general hospitals or other health care facilities.

3. "Voluntary ambulance service" means an ambulance service (i) operating not for pecuniary profit or financial gain, and (ii) no part of the assets or income of which is distributable to, or ensures to the benefit of, its members, directors or officers except to the extent permitted under this article.

This I take to exclude paid EMS from the Article 30 immunity clause. BINAL [ but I'm not a lawyer]

[helicopper 1,050]

I guess we're all in the same church, different pews..... the way it was explained to me is all I've got. As explained to me by the riff raff that hang out in ambulance corps, the wording 'without expectation of monetary compensation.' was interpreted to mean a jacket or a coffee mug or batch of brownies did not cross the line and that the legislation was phrased that way to allow gifts but not salaries.

As I recall, my volunteer corps had some heated debates with respect to buying jackets for members and then over LOSAP and a lawyer was approached for interpretation. There may be opinions of the comptroller and I will hunt that, but it takes time. Even that said, a law means what it means. Obviously one lawyer can argue it does and another argue that it doesn't and it is up to a court to make that determination. Until Thursday I thought a passerby could pull a person out of a car, but I don't anymore.

Exactly, locker room lawyers talking again.

My take was that if I show up as a paramedic and seek no compensation or payment from the patient we're OK. If I were to try to solicit $$$, it would be a no-no. But of course that was some of the riff-raff I used to hang out with.

Some of the IRS rules that have been previously discussed here may further muddy the waters since the IRS calls it "compensation" and most volunteers do not.

Either way, do it right and there's no problem.

Enjoy the snow, again!

[Guest MVFD334]

I had asked this question a few months ago in another post but it never got answered.

Is applying a neck collar a CFR, EMT or MFR(think that is it) skill only.

I know head stabilization can be done by anyone. In class we were specfically told that helmet removal (football, motorcycle etc.) was only an EMT skill.

When i ask this question im asking is there a guidline or law. Im not looking for the simple anyone can put on a neck collar. Because we all know putting a collar on and putting a collar on properly are 2 totally different thinks.

Lot of words mispelled here (overtired)

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I have had issues in one regard as an instructor because victim removal in the FF 1 curriculum has a segment that covers spinal immobilization. I have yet to cover that topic in a course because I believe only persons with the appropriate certification should be performing that skill so they know the complete etiology behind the need and the kinematics involved in doing it (or not doing it) correctly. I do however demonstrate it, being firefighters often have more numbers on scene then EMS personnel and may have to help hold the board or assist with the drag out of the vehicle and cover proper manual stabilization in the event a firefighter is tasked or asked to perform that manuever. In some cases I am very uncomfortable with how many untrained firefighters I have jumping in vehicles holding stabilization and then telling me what I need to do, injuries etc. I also have never tolerated, and I started being a firefighter only first before adding EMS to my background, firefighters with less training then a Paramedic or no medical training at all, that like to bark orders or seem to think they have the answer to every issue, situation involving EMS. This particularly happens often at extrications. I constantly point out to remember that at MVA's with injury...the FD is assisting EMS not the other way around. We are there to facilitate access to and removal of the patient for EMS.

As far as allowing that court case that is utterly ridiculous and let the games begin. Then again how odd could I find it when it comes out of that court system. Maybe there was something in their herbal tea while listening to mantra music and they got confused after reading over their save the spotted owl literature. Then again maybe they were going over in great detail the benefits of medical marijuana. Hopefully the justice system will prevail and if its a jury trial they will see that the person had no ill will and only responded to what they perceived as a danger based on their life expectancy.

StephenTyler I disagree with your opinion. We are trained to handle high stressed situations and how to respond accordingly (at least most of us are). That person responded to what they thought was a threat to life and responded the only way they knew how. Would it be any different if you arrived and had a hazard you deemed as a life threat and utilized an "emergency" removal technique? Would you still have handled the patient (they are not victims to us) "like a ragdoll" at that moment. Did that person actually handle the accident victim "like a ragdoll" or is that attorney language to strengthen the lawsuit? Bystanders will respond the only way they know how or how they have been predisposed to handle an event. They do not have any initial experience or training to fall back on.

I have had a lawyer flat out tell me that if you are a professional provider you are not afforded the same protections that are given to volunteers and bystander good samaritans. This is not to say that you are not indemnified by your agency but you can be directly and personally sued and be out on your own if your agency/municipality does not offer your indemnification.

[ckroll 101]

I had asked this question a few months ago in another post but it never got answered.

Is applying a neck collar a CFR, EMT or MFR(think that is it) skill only.

I know head stabilization can be done by anyone. In class we were specfically told that helmet removal (football, motorcycle etc.) was only an EMT skill.

When i ask this question im asking is there a guidline or law. Im not looking for the simple anyone can put on a neck collar. Because we all know putting a collar on and putting a collar on properly are 2 totally different thinks.

Lot of words mispelled here (overtired)

It's a very good question. The overarching legal principles ATTMBRRIAC [as told to me by riff raff inhabiting ambulance corps] and confirmed by searching it on the internet are the 'borrowed servant' and 'captain of the ship' doctrines. An injured party has the right to sue someone. The law recognizes that to be the 'someone in charge'. In EMS the 'someone in charge' will be the person of highest training whose name is on a Care Report.

The person who accompanies a patient to the hospital and is listed on the report is the person who is responsible for the care rendered to the patient up to that point. If a paramedic asks a trained parrot [not EMS trained, obviously] to put a collar on a patient, the quality of the collaring will be considered the work of the paramedic.

So, what a person can do [ i.e. collaring] is up to the person whose responsibility it is to provide care and their level of training. As I practice it, NO, not anyone can hold stabilization. A person who holds stabilization for a patient for whom I am responsible needs to be trained in holding stabilization. If I am turning a call over to BLS, then it is up to BLS how they want a patient packaged/handled.

In an emergency..... and it's always an emergency, it's why we're there.... someone has to balance quality of care with the need for timely care. Skills may end up getting performed by individuals who lack standing, but only if it is at the behest of someone who does have standing and asks the person to perform the skill and consequently takes responsibility for it.

[ckroll 101]

From the New York Times www.nytimes.com Opinion

Editorial

I’ll Have to Call My Lawyer

Published: January 2, 2009

“Good Samaritan” laws give legal protection to bystanders who courageously come to the aid of people in emergencies. Last month, the California Supreme Court gave its state law a disturbingly narrow interpretation that could discourage future good Samaritans from providing help out of fear of being sued.

The ruling came after the victim of a car crash sued her would-be rescuer for negligence. On Halloween night in 2004 the car in which Alexandra Van Horn was riding crashed into a light pole. When her co-worker, Lisa Torti, who was in another car, saw the accident, she rushed over to help. Worried that the wrecked car would catch fire or blow up, Ms. Torti lifted Ms. Van Horn out of the front passenger seat. Ms. Van Horn, who ended up being paralyzed, sued, contending that Ms. Torti’s negligence in moving her caused her paralysis.

In her defense, Ms. Torti invoked California’s good Samaritan law. All 50 states have laws of this kind, but the protection they offer varies. By a 4-to-3 vote, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s law did not give Ms. Torti immunity from liability because it applies only to people who offer medical help.

The justices in the majority relied heavily on the fact that the California good Samaritan law is included in the part of the state’s laws that covers emergency medical services. The dissenters, however, had the better argument. As they noted, by its plain language, the California law — which speaks generally of “emergency care” — should apply to both medical and nonmedical help.

The implications of the ruling are disturbing. When people see an accident, the law should not discourage them from offering the best help they can. Now, however, Californians will have reason to hesitate. If they offer nonmedical help — like pulling someone out of a burning house, or rescuing a drowning person — they may be putting their life savings at risk.

California’s Legislature should rewrite the law to make clear that anyone who makes a good-faith effort to help in an emergency, and acts reasonably, is protected. Other states should examine their own good Samaritan laws and see that they do not discourage well-meaning bystanders from aiding people in harm’s way.

[ckroll 101]

This may be an old horse, but I think it's got legs. There is a good piece from the Wall Street Journal that addresses the issue.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/19/good-s...y-for-rescuers/

If correct, as descended from English common law, there is no obligation in the US to rescue. Hence, there is liability if one chooses to rescue. What a good samaritan law covers is highly debatable.

California law states in part:

1799.102. 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 resulting from any act or omission. The scene

of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other

places where medical care is usually offered.

The ruling of the majority that a civilian rendering non-medical aid is not protected in the California case has been supported by a number of learned individuals on the grounds that good samaritan law is intended to provide immunity for trained professionals who stop to render medical help. New York law is at least as restrictive in its language.

"...any person who voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or other emergency outside a hospital, doctor's office or any other place having proper and necessary medical equipment, to a person who is unconscious, ill, or injured, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such emergency treatment unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such person...."

There is chatter on legal sites, so this decision is being followed by legal professionals. I wonder how much protection even a volunteer fire department...who does not field a rescue squad... would have. While I do not agree with the interpretation that good samaritan means medical aid rendered by medically trained people, it could well be that judges in New York could come to the same conclusions as those in California.

It would be great to get lawyers familiar with NYS law to weigh in on this. We all have family and friends, who are not professioinals, that would without hesitation, stop to help at an emergency. What protection does NYS offer them if they do?

[Just a guy 493]

First off I don't agree with the decision out of California, it's just another bad decision to come out of the increasingly liberal california judicial system. With that being said, heres a new twist to the discussion, how about a civilian being out in a situation where the below listed law applies. How would liability apply if a police officer ordered you to assist in an arrest and the perp got hurt during it, I could guarentee you would be able to be sued. We really do live in a too litigious society. ( I doubt I spelled litigious correctly)

§ 195.10 Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer.

A person is guilty of refusing to aid a peace or a police officer

when, upon command by a peace or a police officer identifiable or

identified to him as such, he unreasonably fails or refuses to aid such

peace or a police officer in effecting an arrest, or in preventing the

commission by another person of any offense.

Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer is a class B misdemeanor.