The consequences of intervening...Good intentions count for nothing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,911
Location
Alma Illinois
We have threads here quite frequently where a member wants to know if they should intervene in a conflict because they are on the scene and armed. Often those threads get quite contentious as members try to impose their own personal moral code on others. Id don't want this thread to go down that road. Let's limit discussion to this legal issue and why it may be a reason to go about one's own business.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6498405&page=1

Woman Sued for Rescue Effort in Car Crash
Legal Experts Say California Ruling Could Make Good Samaritans Hesitate
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Dec. 19, 2008


No good deed goes unpunished, or so goes the saying.
A paralyzed woman is suing a former co-worker for moving her from a car accident

Such was the case with Lisa Torti, who is being sued for pulling a now-paralyzed friend from the wreckage of a Los Angeles car accident in 2004.

The victim's lawyers claim the Good Samaritan bumbled the rescue and caused injury by yanking her friend "like a rag doll" to safety.

But Torti -- now a 30-year-old interior designer from Las Vegas -- said she thought she had seen smoke and feared the car would explode. She claims she was only trying to help her friend, Alexandra Van Horn, and her own life has been adversely affected by the incident.

"I know [Van Horn] has a lot of financial issues and her life has changed," she said. "But it's not my fault. I can't be angry at her, only the path she has chosen to take. I can only pray it helps her."

"I don't have any more fight left," Torti told ABCNews.com, choking back tears. "It's really emotional."

The California Supreme Court ruled this week that Van Horn may sue Torti for allegedly causing her friend's paralysis. The case -- the first of its kind -- challenges the state's liability shield law that protects people who give emergency assistance.

Only Medical Workers Immune

The court ruled 4-3 that only those administering medical care have legal immunity, but not those like Torti, who merely take rescue action. The justices said that the perceived danger to Van Horn in the wrecked car was not "medical."

The court majority said the 1980 Emergency Medical Service Act, which Torti's lawyers cited for protection, was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently.

Van Horn's lawsuit will go on to trial court to determine if Torti is to blame for Van Horn's paralysis.

But some legal experts say the ruling may discourage people from trying to save lives.

"What they are saying is that if you pull someone out of a pool, if you provide CPR, you do have a defense," said Torti's lawyer, Jody Steinberg.

"It seems to defy logic," he said. "At a certain point anyone who instructs or educates [in emergencies] will advise that you must hesitate. Those split-second decisions will be gone and someone could die."

Emergency Trainers Worry

The Boy Scouts of America, which offers emergency training to youth, filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case.

But Van Horn's lawyers said their argument is "nonsense."

At the time of the accident, Torti and Van Horn, both make-up artists, were acquaintances at work. They had been drinking with a group of friends and left a bar in suburban Chatsworth after a Halloween party, according to court papers.

The car in which Van Horn and another passenger were riding spun out of control and hit a telephone pole. Torti said she was a passenger in another car that was following them. Before emergency crews arrived, she allegedly offered to help Van Horn from the wreckage.

"There could be so many things that could happen and I obviously wanted to get her out of the car," said Torti. "She said she couldn't move. I did the best thing I could to move her from the situation and get her out of danger to a place that was a little safer."

Torti said she put one arm under the victim's legs and one behind her back, carrying her out of the car. But Van Horn testified that her friend grabbed her by the arm and pulled her from the car "like a rag doll," allegedly causing injury to a vertebrae and a lacerated liver.

Jury to Decide What Caused Paralysis

Court documents showed that the question of whether she was paralyzed during the crash or when she was pulled out of the car is in dispute.

"She said she couldn't move out of the car," said Torti. "They exaggerated it. I would never drag someone out of anything or pull someone out like a rag doll."

But Van Horn's lawyer, Robert Hutchinson, told ABCNews.com that witnesses said there was never any danger of an explosion, and both the driver and a backseat passenger were still in the car when Torti took Van Horn from the vehicle.

"[Van Horn] got her seat belt off and was stunned," said Hutchinson. "She couldn't open the door and without being asked Ms. Torti grabbed and pulled her out of the car. It was her belief that the car was about to explode."

Hutchinson argues that despite her belief that there had been an explosion, Torti pulled the victim at an angle and dumped her on a hard median next to the car, allegedly injuring Van Horn's spine.

Victim 'Ruined for Life'

"We all know that anyone suspected of a spinal injury should not be moved," he said. "She was not bleeding and was conscious. If the car had been on fire, why didn't she carry her 50 yards away?"

Van Horn was taken to the hospital where she underwent surgery. Now 26, she has returned to her home in Minneapolis and is confined to a wheelchair. "She is ruined for life," said Hutchinson.

But Torti said her life, too, has also been changed forever, "jolting" her relationship with her parents, whose homeowner's insurance will end up paying if she loses the case.

Peter Keane, a dean emeritus and professor of law at Golden Gate Law School, said the impact of the court ruling will "be a bad one" and have repercussions in about a dozen other states that have Good Samaritan laws.

Good Samaritans Will Now 'Hesitate'

He said the ruling will force ordinary people to be "reflective" before coming to the aid of a person in an emergency.

"It's much too literal an interpretation of the immunity law for Good Samaritans," he told ABCNews.com. "Now it puts the onus on the lay person in an emergency situation to try to figure out the nuances of what medical care means, something that could subject them to liability later on."

Meanwhile, Torti said she feels betrayed by a former colleague and is now shy about helping others.

"I am really shocked it turned out the way it did," said Torti.

"How do you explain what you feel when someone you help is going after your money?" she said. "I am really sad because I have always known how to help people and now I always second guess myself. You want to make sure you do the right thing, but you're scared. The world turns us into robots that don't care."

While it's easy to be outraged at the decision to allow this case to proceed and write it off as the product of judges looking out for their fellow attorneys, the reality of the situation is the various Good Samaritan laws only provide so much protection. Good intentions mean nothing. Who among us is so skilled and so good at reading the situation that they can be 100% certain they will be clear of civil action if they used their firearm to defend another? It seems that besides risking your life, you really are risking yours and your family's financial future too.

Just something to think about the next time you are playing one of those scenarios out in your head or are getting ready to respond to a thread here at THR.
 
theres an article that describes how they were hanging out smoking pot went to bar at 10 stayed till closing. brings up some interesting issues about contributory negligence
 
I would think that if they were both under the influence that alone would be grounds for dismissal. Gee, go out and do something stupid and end up paralyzed shouldn't entitle you to collect damages......

If a judgment is awarded lawyers all over the country will use the precedent to get past the Good Samaritan laws and attempt to collect damages.

Now to bring this back on topic for S&T, what kind of case do you think might be brought against someone who uses his firearm to intervene and has a bad outcome?
 
Jeff White said:
Now to bring this back on topic for S&T, what kind of case do you think might be brought against someone who uses his firearm to intervene and has a bad outcome?

Rule of Aqusition # 285: No good deed goes unpunished.
 
what kind of case do you think might be brought against someone who uses his firearm to intervene and has a bad outcome?

I would imagine that a competent attorney could come up with grounds for a lawsuit for any sort of harm that occurred after the point of intervention.

I'd like to see some actual cases or news accounts of interventions that have gone well, poorly, or somewhere in between.
 
Being an ex EMT from California (Chatsworth to be exact) I am so glad I left.

I know it says that the trained medical responders still fall under the Good Samaritans Act but still. I cant tell you how many times I showed up on scene to have someone administering CPR and help save a life.

On another note, I'm not sure I would want someone that is High and under the influance attempting to save my life regardless of the danger I am in.

PSS I found out that this took place 5 min from the local fire station.
 
This particular case in not exactly typical.
I have seen this issue hashed out over and over on the internet. The best point made was, what if that was your daughter. Wouldn't you want someone to intervene?
There is an excellent case to be made for extreme caution before doing anything of the sort.
But at times you really have to say, Eff it. I don't care if I get sued, I'm going to do the right thing because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. Fortunately those times are few and far between.
 
I'm going to do the right thing because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't.

I totally agree with what you are saying but on the other hand lets apply that to the article above...

Say you are now intoxicated and impaired. Can you tell me what the right thing is?
 
Clearly, there are a couple of things going on here. On the surface it looks like a ridiculous law suit resulting from a truly tragic chain of events. However, after reading the article a couple times I started playing the devil’s advocate in my head and 3 things stuck with me:

1. Quailification of the “rescuer” is questionable.
2. The action taken wasn’t sufficient to protect the “victim” from the perceived threat (the automobile exploding)
3. There was alcohol use
4. An injury occurred

I have kept a current CPR card since I was 15. Every time I go to renew it they explain what is commonly known as the Good-Samaritan Law. It basically states that you are protected so long as you have received instruction and your actions are performed as taught. (e.g. performing CPR in accordance with the method I was most recently certified to use.) I don’t know what our “rescuers” background is, but I don’t think that makeup artists generally spend their spare time a volunteer firefighters. My second point is self explanatory: she should have carried her friend much further to protect her from an exploding car. Alcohol is known to impair judgment and negatively affect reasoning. A health-care professional, practicing under the influence of alcohol is also (at best) practicing reckless endangerment. Perhaps there should be an amendment to the Samaritan law to remove protection from intoxicated rescuers in the event of an unexpected injury. (broken ribs during CPR are an expected injury and shouldn’t be included.) The bottom line is that this woman will live the rest of her life in a chair because of that day and the reasons surrounding that fact give us a lot of issues to consider.
 
Well I think Jeff's point is that some people on the forum play an enthusiastic armchair commando willing to stick themselves into any situation, albeit with good intentions.

This case is just an illustration that you can get your butt sued off by anyone "harmed" by your actions regardless of your motivations.
 
Say you are now intoxicated and impaired. Can you tell me what the right thing is?
Not without having been there at the time.
What is intoxicated and impaired? I can drink 3 beers and be absolutely rational even though I'd flunk a breathalyzer test.
As for qualification, the rescuer had the only qualification relevant: she was the only one there at the time. At least I assume that's what happened.
Sometimes you can do everything right and still get bit for it. That's life.
 
This pretty well sums it up.

But some legal experts say the ruling may discourage people from trying to save lives.

So it is probable that some people may die as a consequence.

To offer a gun-related incident: One of my CCW instructors related an incident where he was armed, and out and about one night – I believe in California, if that matters. As he passed a wooded park he came on what looked like a rape-in-progress. His first instinct was to draw his handgun and intervene. But instead he used a cell-phone to call 911. After the police arrived it was determined that the supposed rapist and victim were really two rather kinky people having consensual sex. While the circumstances made the incident illegal it was not a case of felony rape, and if he had ended up shooting the “rapist,” he could have been in a world of hurt. As my instructor explained, your CCW license gives you the right to protect yourself and others only if your (or they’re) life is endangered or there is a reasonable belief that you or they will suffer serious or life threatening injury. It does not convey any law enforcement authority. Don’t ever forget this! You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
 
The best point made was, what if that was your daughter. Wouldn't you want someone to intervene?
In this particular case, not if the car is NOT on fire and the would-be intervenor is both drunk and clueless.

I'd personally rather my daughter be able to recover from her injuries rather than be paralyzed for life by a drunken idiot.

He said the ruling will force ordinary people to be "reflective" before coming to the aid of a person in an emergency.
In this case, reflection would have been a good thing.

Now to bring this back on topic for S&T, what kind of case do you think might be brought against someone who uses his firearm to intervene and has a bad outcome?
If the shooter were drunk, and accidentally shot the victim in the spine (paralyzing her for life) because in his inebriated state, he thought she was being attacked when she actually wasn't?

The intervenor would have had his posterior sued off, and rightly so, IMO.
 
The lesson I take away (for defensive interventions):

As non-military, non-LEO, I will think very VERY hard before defending someone I don't know.
My family and loved ones are absolutely on the Will Protect List.
Strangers? That's a hard call.

Unless it's your profession, "sheepdog" mentality is a bunch of hooey.
Better to leave well enough alone and not risk adverse consequences for yourself and, by extension, the ones you love most.
 
benEzra said:
In this case, reflection would have been a good thing.
...
The intervenor would have had his posterior sued off, and rightly so, IMO.

In the specific case, you make some excellent points. Both parties were likely not in full possession of their senses when the incident occurred.

But the ruling by the SCOC was more general case, which is disconcerting on multiple levels.

...only in the PRofK.
 
Of course, anybody can sue you for just about anything. And intervening with a firearm in what you perceive to be a life-or-death situation is especially likely to have at least some kind of legal consequences.

Regardless, if, in my best judgement, I truly believe the circumstances require an intervention that I am capable of providing, and if I am able to do so without recklessly endangering my family, I hope I will do the right thing.

Circumstances that would invoke that kind of response would have to involve innocent people in danger of death or great bodily injury and in which I have the means to do something effective.

That doesn't mean I'm going to run to the sound of gunfire at the mall (most likely a gang dispute anyway). It does mean I would jump into the water to pull out a drowning victim (I'm a reasonably good swimmer).

It doesn't mean I'm going to go after somebody who just robbed the bank to prevent them from getting away. It does mean I might take the shot if I saw a women being viciously assaulted at a bus stop.

I have to hope my judgement and instincts will be correct, and then let the chips fall where they may. I hope I will NOT be paralyzed by indecision and the fear of legal consequences in a situation where my prompt and effective action would mean the difference between life and death.
 
Certainly gives pause before stopping to help another. My how times have changed.

Another issue is these injuries may be due to the collision, not the woman helping her.

How can a lay person be expected to know the consequences of spinal cord injury? Certainly she as a make-up artist has never taken ATLS or anything of the like.

I live in fear of a lawsuit every day at work for trying to help people. Sometimes bad outcomes happen no matter what we try to do.
 
I have kept a current CPR card since I was 15. Every time I go to renew it they explain what is commonly known as the Good-Samaritan Law. It basically states that you are protected so long as you have received instruction and your actions are performed as taught. (e.g. performing CPR in accordance with the method I was most recently certified to use.) I don’t know what our “rescuers” background is, but I don’t think that makeup artists generally spend their spare time a volunteer firefighters. My second point is self explanatory: she should have carried her friend much further to protect her from an exploding car.
I am unfamilar with California's law, but as CPR/FA/ACLS instructor, I don't think the immunity hinges on performing an intervention "as taught." Rather, (at least in Hawaii) it hinges on performance in good faith (if you do 16:2 ratio of compressions instead of 15:2, I don't think that would automatically 'disqualify' you from immunity under the act...) without expectation of renumeration, that you not exceed your level of training (I could, because of my advanced training insert a needle thoracostomy or a cricothyrotomy, but most lay rescuers could not), and that you not act in a grossly negligent manner.
Contending that the actor wasn't really concerned about an explosion because she didn't move the victim far enough from the car is a weak argument and imposes an expectation on that rescuer that they should be familar with knowledge equivalent to that of a professional. Do you know what the blast radius is for a vehicle fire/explosion? Would the average joe know how far away was far enough?
That being said, I do find some concern with the finding that removal of the victim from the vehicle was not a medical act and therefore not covered to be quite distressing. If indeed the car was on the verge of catching fire, then it would certainly be a medical issue. My problem with the finding is that it imposes unrealistic expectations on lay persons (while cars don't ususally explode/catch fire as the movies/TV often portray, it does happen, and sometimes quite quickly) to determin the relative risk of such events occuring before acting to assist someone. So, if someone dives into a shallow pool and sustains a neck injury, is removing them from the pool not a "medical act" and therefore likely to subject the lay rescuer to liability exposure if the neck injury is exacerbated during the extrication?
The intent of those Good Samaritan laws were to encourage the lay public to intervene, even if they could not do so at the level associated with professionals, by shielding them from prosecution for any damages that may be incurred by the victim, as long as the rescuer didn't act grossly negligent. This discision is very likely to act as a deterrent to those otherwise inclined to help others in similar circumstances.
 
This isn't really gun related, but it does illustrate the level of insanity within the CA Supreme Court. CA truly is a nesting ground for frivolous lawsuits.
 
Last time I took a Red Cross First Aid course, several years ago, the instructor explicitly stressed that you MUST get permission from the injured party, if at ALL possible, before you touch them. He kept coming back to this point, and made us do this to each other when we did the practicing. We HAD to get their attention, identify who we were, and ASK them if they wanted us to help them.

This incident listed above is a perfect example of precisely the reason he drilled this into us, LAWSUITS! You can save a person's life, and they can try to sue you because they have to live in a wheelchair now, regardless of whether you caused that injury to them or not. It's a sick world, and people will do anything to achieve personal gain, or get financial support however they can, from whoever they can. Just like if someone tried to rob you at gunpoint and you shot them instead, they lived, and they sued you in a civil suit because you injured them.
 
The CA supreme court basically reinterpreted the law and ruled that it only applied to PROFESSIONAL emergency personnel, not good samaritans. In California, you're better off letting a person die than helping them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top