Damn straight I will speed by. I have no intention of risking my entire financial future because someone can't accept that shit happens sometimes, and needs to blame someone.

How does that ruling go along with municipalities that do have a "failure to stop and render aid" law?

That woman is a greedy bitch. Her friend should have let her die. Yes, I know that you never want to move someone unless absolutely necessary, but it seems he thought it was necessary, and not everyone has as much medical knowledge as this lawsuit seems to be assuming.

Asshat judges. What else is new?

I am curious if it was her friend pulling her from the wreck that paralyzed her or the accident. The "experts" on CNN weren't really clear on the issue.
IMHO, This case should have been tossed out. Even if the rescuers actions caused her to be paralyzed.
The woman made a judgment call; She really believed her friends life was in imminent danger and she put her own life @ risk to rescue her friend. There was smoke and some sort of liquid leaking from the car. Thinking the car was going to blow is not an unreasonable assumption. She had to pull her out in a hurry!
This just goes to prove the old saying- No good dead goes unpunished.(How apt the title of this blog) I hope that this case is eventually dismissed and the paralyzed woman gets some much needed counseling.

There was a time when I would render aid to someone on the side of the road. When people started winning lawsuits against good samaritans, I decided to take a "Fuck you, call AAA" attitude.

Ambulance Chasers ruin everything.

If you have no medical background or training most likely do more harm than good. So as harsh as brian's response is in most cases it's correct. Unless the vehicle is burning (currently) or sinking pulling a person our of the wreck is almost guarantee to do more harm than good unless you know first responder level first aid (some where between EMT basic and basic first aid) and have the right equipment. This may actually be a legit suite depending on how she was extricated from the vehicle and the training of the person.

I have stopped at more than one crash site but that was only when I had the gear and was a current EMT basic. If it comes to a law suite in court I just pull the policy card (yes it is an actual card) and as long as I followed it, it'll either be dropped or over-turned on appeal. Hey a few grand and a weeks worth of hassle is worth a clean conscience.

This is yet another case where widespread ignorance makes things tougher for everyone.

A lot of people actually believe Hollywood scenes where the car's gas tank blows entire neighborhoods away. They don't. The gas tank is in the back or just forward of the rear axle, and has expansion volume and blowout panels to prevent explosion, which is a completely different thing than rapid combustion. Frontal crashes, light-pole or not, spill engine fluids, not fuel, and the switches that activate airbags also kill the fuel pump and ignition - and unlock the doors. Engine compartment fires take a few minutes to involve the car.

So the court should be considering the current state of tribal knowledge, as well as the status of injuries before and after the Samaritan arrived. This ploy is to access the defendant's insurance policy because the expenses of paralysis are large.

Part of what makes us great is the sacrifices we make for others. Declaring a personal policy that you'll refuse to help someone in dire need lessens you. If you want to be that person, knock yourself out. I can leave you there unless you're going to die.

"Damn straight I will speed by." Ha that's absolutely hilarious the atheist and agnostic stop to help but the christian will just pass by to save herself POSSIBLE financial issues. Oh holy crap hypocrisy at it's finest.

So the court should be considering the current state of tribal knowledge, as well as the status of injuries before and after the Samaritan arrived. This ploy is to access the defendant's insurance policy because the expenses of paralysis are large.

Agree. And I probably would have done the same, thinking there was a danger of the gas tank blowing. Personally, I'd have a hard time living with letting somebody die when it was possible for me to save them (even if my thinking is/was based on movie mythology). Likewise, I'm terrified of ever hitting a person while driving. A friend of mine has nerve damange from an accident years ago, and can't wear long sleeves because it bothers her arms too much. I wonder if the person who did that to her loses sleep nights over it. I'm guessing they don't.

huh, what happened to intent in the good samaratin law? Having rendered aid in a few crashes, I certainly wouldn't move anyone unless it was imperative that I do so... sure cars don't blow up rad, but they do catch fire after the fact, and sometimes suddenly. In any event the biggest issue here is how do you make a law that fits every situation?

Good Samaratin laws were designed jjust for this purpose, I can't believe they set it aside. It does however show that perhaps the scope of the law in this case is needlessly narrow. Rescue is an important part, at least as important as medical in many cases. Recently a guy jumped into clear creek to rescue a lady whose car had slid off the highway into it. At great personal risk to himself. Sadly she died in the ambulance, but at least not alone.

It's an all or nothing thing, you can't think "well, will I get sued?" you simply don't have the time in a really bad situation. This person has some serious issues to blame a person trying to save them, and the judges either have their hands tied by the law, or believe that people simply shouldn't get involved, leave it to professionals. Even if those professionals are 20 minutes away, and the first five minutes are terribly important...

Ok atheist, go get sued trying to help. I personally, as a parent, have a responsibility to my kids to be able to afford to feed and clothe them, which would not be possible were I to be the defendant in an expensive lawsuit. I don't carry a personal umbrella pollcy, do you? This lawsuit is not going to be covered by ANY of his insurances, he will have his (or hers) wages garnished the rest of her life. Pathetic, yes, By the womqn bringing the suit that makes us all have to worry about working the rest of our life to pay the person we tried to help. Pathetic by the judges. Not pathetic for the people having to make the choice to put their family's wellbeing before a strangers.

I would have stayed at the scene, called 911 and would have asked the dispatcher if I should do anything else (in which case they would have said no). I certainly would not just "speed by," but would be cautious about getting too involved. That said, of course this woman shouldn't be getting sued. I hope the whole community comes to her legal defense.

Just remember that rescue actions are done quickly, but in a planned manner, not rashly, and you will be fine.

And momof3, your family is actually an added buffer against civil lawsuits of this type, because you can appeal to consequences in court; it's not a debate. The cited case is an exception, not the rule when dealing with inexpert aid at a crash scene.

If you are named in any suit, your best defense in court is to show your record of consideration for your family and your empathy with those of other people - not one of selfishness.

Consider a case where an ordinary accident is magnified by rare circumstances - say, your fender-bender makes Miley Cyrus poke her eye out with an eyeliner pencil. It'll cost her suffering, and possibly millions in personal endorsement deals, but you're not going to pay all that on a court order if you have a clean driving record, all your insurance is up to date and you have all the hallmarks of ordinary responsibility. The court can recognize extraordinary circumstances, and if the first one doesn't, there are appeals.

I've had a lot of first aid training over the years and one lesson stressed in every training session is the you never move the injured person unless that person will die otherwise.

The reason for not moving the person is to avoid aggravating possible spinal injuries. A broken vertebrae is a painful, but recoverable, injury. A bone fragment driven into the spinal cord is not.

Why do you think the rescue guys on tv always have a cervical collar on the injured? Not 'cause it looks cool.

I had an avid-motorcyclist friend a few years ago who put a very large day-glo orange sticker on his helmet with a warning not to remove the helmet in case of accident. Despite the prominent warning, one "good Samaritan" tried to remove his helmet after an accident. Woozy and barely conscious, my friend struggled to fight his "rescuer" and keep his helmet on. Luckily, a passing fellow motorcyclist came to his aid.

> I decided to take a "Fuck you,
> call AAA" attitude.

Human nature, red in tooth and claw, never disappoints. When asked to imagine these scenarios, gentle minds always imagine themselves to be the ones on the outside of the tragedy, looking in.

Considering how things might look from the interior of a demolished automobile is much less appealing as a fantasy. Presumably, from behind the shattered windshield with a ruptured gas tank nearby, an accident victim is less likely to cry out to a passerby: "Fuck you, call AAA".

I think Radwaste gets this. I wish he spent twice as long writing his comments (not that they were twice as long, just that he was clearer with what he means).

(But I love the idea of Miley blinded by eyeliner... Happy Holidays!)

The shame of this court case and laws relating to this type of incidents is that the better things about humanity gets stifled.

Try another case of a Man is driving by in his pickup and sees a little 2-3 year old little girl walking on the side of the road all by herself. He was going to stop and help the little girl BUT he thought again and thought of what would happen if people saw him with a little girl not his relative. He saw hassles with laws, possible sex offender registration, and people tsking him. So the "Fuck it, not my trouble" comes into play. So the man drives right on by. The reality was the little girl got away from her daycare. Later she was found dead- drowned in a pond.

People also comment on certain things and nitpick on things about "a car engine never actually explodes in real life" or "You should KNOW never to move the neck after an accident". True not everybody knows everything like if a car will explode, how to tie a tourniquet, or how to give a proper "Heimlich Maneuver". But if somebody is going to help me they MUST know one thing - "helping somebody is noble"

If I am trouble I NEED only really one thing SOMEBODY TO HELP ME" I will take a helpful kind moron over "sorry sir I am a doctor but first you need to hash out some rules with my Lawyer".

John - you wish for a world that no longer exists. "Shit happens" is no longer a defense.

I live knowing that in case of an emergency, I cannot count on anyone to come to my aid unless I summon them.

I don't like it, but there it is. Twenty years ago, I thought nothing of helping a lady change a tire. It never even occurred to me that anyone would consider suing me if the spare failed.

Now? I start from the assumption that they are looking for someone else to blame for their woes and work appropriately.

So Vlad, these courts would consider what sort of person I am before telling me what I owe? These would be the same courts that allow this lawsuit, no? Forgive me if I'm not comforted.

It's a shame asshats have made the world this way. I am with Brian in that I don't expect others to help me, ever. I am frequently pleasantly suprised, and would hope I'd rot in hell were I ever to try to punish them for it.

It is the world we have. But it is also a question of whether to accept it or work to change it. The latter may not be possible, but who knows?

One of the root causes is the sheer number of lawyers - all of whom want to earn a living somehow. Were there 1/10 as many, they wouldn't have the time (or need) to file idiotic lawsuits.

Another root cause is that the US legal system allows court precedents to override the written law. In most other western countries, court precedents can only be used to clarity ambiguities in the law, never to contradict. The idea of legislation through lawsuits is bizarre.

The combination of these two is a disaster: lots of stupid lawsuits --> that create precedents --> that become law without review by the legislative bodies.

Sometimes there are no happy endings. An eighth grade classmate dove into shallow water and broke his neck at a class outing. He was the class clown sort of kid, so we all watched him float face down in the water for what was probably 30 seconds before a couple of classmates turned him over and pulled him to shore. He ended up paralyzed, and died less than a year later.

This was a half a century ago, there were no cell phones or 911. I'll never know if turning him over was the cause of the paralysis. I do know that nobody ever faulted the kids who helped.

They were different times. Much that was good about them is no more.

It wasn't Vlad, momof3, and yes, that's what courts do.

Now you know what you didn't before.

I suppose that in order to protect the family's income, you are also advising your youngsters to avoid public service, such as police, military or other volunteer work, in addition to not coming to the aid of a stranger. There's three more for "the ME FIRST generation".

If you are estranged from them, then they will not help you. Be careful.

I don't get you, Rad. I have a harvard law educated very wealthy/successful brother and father, both of whom assure me that you can get most anything from someone in the right court. And that no matter what that paper I signed to go skydiving said, you can never sign away your right to sue. Yet you're teaching me something they can't? My brother, a cop already threatened with his 1st lawsuit by an angry spoiled kids' parents, DOES carry an umbrella policy, so that no asshat can take his life's work and money. Military members are covered, as long as they are acting under orders, so not as much worry there.

I'd think you'd be angrier at the woman bringing the suit and those who allowed it, rather than those of us worried about the outcome and precedent. Huh.

OK. momof3, you have somebody from Harvard on your side and that's that.

Heh.

Some day, I hope you learn the difference between the rule and the exception.

The right to bring suit is apparently something you oppose. That's simply stupid. That sets you, yourself up to have what you consider important dismissed by someone else. I'm sure you'd like that.

This suit is conspicuous because it is the exception. Again: feel free to neglect your neighbors and mine in fear of our mighty legal powers to put you in poverty.

Wait - if you have so little compassion for your fellow man that you'd pass his bleeding body, you're already below the poverty line.

Sorry about that. Hey, I heard you say, "Me first". You get hurt, I'll let you lay there for awhile. Feel better now?

Here's what you should "get": if you declare you're not helping others in emergencies, you shouldn't be surprised when they don't help you.

And, to be consistent, you should forcefully decline all non-professional help.

We should all think about this line:

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

Well, Duh. This, of course, is not the point: it's whether someone rendering aid must meet state-of-the-art standards in rescue procedure, and whether a rescue effort gone wrong should be treated the same if a Samaritan acted in good faith as when the county EMTs act as their profession.

But the statement amazes me for another reason: since it doesn't address what party would impose the obligation, it implies that the State is the only impetus one might have to help others. Their Honor can't tell people that the State requires passers-by to help, even though the Admiralty requires that of seagoing vessels. The US Supreme Court has also ruled, in Warren v. DC, that a person cannot hold a government agency liable for their personal welfare either.

This should call for some thought on just what the court means in its unanimity. The ruling appears to be outcome-based, the bane of many other federal and state actions.

I really can't comprehend how someone could just pass the scene of an accident where it is likely that someone needs help. Stopping doesn't require that one do something they might get sued for. It just means that you are on the scene to potentially render aid if necessary and make sure that professional help is on the way if needed.

Yes, it really sucks that this lady is being sued. But lets take this same situation and see how someone else might handle it differently.

I'll pick me, because I'm a sucker for helping people in need (I once changed a tire for a guy who easily could have done it himself, because I was wearing work clothes and he was wearing a thousand+ dollar suit). So I come upon the scene of this accident. Instead of instantly assuming I should pull the lady out of the car, I'm going to grab my fire extinguisher with one hand and dial 911 with my other hand. I will ask about the well being of anyone in the vehicle, but my priority is to look for smoke and blast any I see. When I am confident that the car isn't about to erupt in flames (Yes Rad, I know it won't blow, but they do occasionally start burning something awful).

All that I will do for people with potential injuries, is check for a pulse and/or irregular breathing. If they have no pulse, I am not liable for damage incurred while moving them into a position to perform CPR - getting them breathing and the heart pumping is tantamount. Likewise, if the car is actually on fire the priority is to get them out of it - no liability issues there.

There is a great deal that one can do to render aid, that cannot get them sued. And sometimes it pays off. The guy I mentioned who's tire I changed, he slipped a fifty in my hand when he shook it after. A elderly lady I helped, when her car ended up in a ditch after a blow-out - her daughter hooked me up with a bunch of concert tickets and got me in to meet Pink Floyd, Bob Seger and best of the best, Neil Young. All because I couldn't pass an extremely elderly women, crying on the side of the highway, when apparently a hell of a lot of folks could (it was on a very busy highway and she had been there for thirty minutes or so).

I could go on, but I'll stop with the greatest benefit of all, helping others who need help feels absolutely fucking awesome. Whether it's sharing a smile with a stranger who looks down, or jump-starting someone's heart - helping others is just about the best feeling there is.

No, again, asswipe, the problem isn't me, it's the asshats who punish those who help. What don't you get about that?

I"ve called 911 probably 5 times in that last year, to summon help for others. Wrecks, some homeless guy hanging out on an overpass, people trying to run across an interstate with lots of traffic. There's a difference in not helping, and not putting your apparently now-suable-for-bad-outcomes ass on the line.

Lots of lawyers get rich off making that exception. It's not so rare.

There were 2 cars full of people, and the only person who says she saw smoke coming from the car that hit a pole was Lisa Torti.

This is from newspaper reports on the incident:

" Just how and why Torti moved Van Horn is disputed. Torti testified that she placed one arm under Van Horn's legs and the other behind her back to lift her. She did so, she said, because she saw smoke and liquid coming from the car, and she feared the vehicle would catch fire or explode.

But others who testified said there was no smoke, nor was there any indication the car would explode. To remove Van Horn, they said, Torti grabbed her by the arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll," court documents note.

Then Torti set Van Horn next to the car.

"Why did she leave her at the foot of the car if she says it was going to explode?" asked Michael Snider, a partner at the firm representing Van Horn. "

If the car was not about to explode, she was not saving the other person's life. If there was a real danger, why would she be the only one to see it?

Based on reports of the others who were there, it sounds like she should not have pulled her out, but waited for the professionals to get there and figure out how to do it safely. That is pretty basic knowledge for any adult - at least I hope so! I have known that since I was a kid.

I would like someone to help me if I was in an accident, but I wouldn't want someone panicking and just doing whatever comes into their head, if it is not based on some rational judgment. Call 911, ask them what to do, and definitely stay with the person until help arrives.

Okay, at least momof3 isn't looking things up.

Warren v. DC shows that authorities (that would be the people on the line at 911) are not required to assist you. Not required. Get that?

Now, you are free to "choose life" no matter what professionals tell you about your unborn. They're always wrong. But, you can defer to them when it's somebody else.

It's all about you. That much is clear. No need to explain further.

Happy New Year!