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

[HIcarry]

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.

Not quite the reason for the legal action in the OP. What you are talking about is consent. People who are not decisionally incapacitated by trauma, drugs or mental conditions can refuse even life saving treatment. Failure to adhere to their wishes can result in charges of assault and battery.
An unconscious person, or someone incapable of making rational decisions (a child without a parent in the immediate area, a dellusional person) is deemed to agree to treatment via the implied consent doctrine.
The person that pulled the victim from the car is not being sued because she asisted/treated/moved (at least as far as I can tell from the news report) the victim without her consent, but that her actions were not covered under what is considered California's Good Samaritan law because moving her was not considered a "medical action" and that her actions were allegedly negligent.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

I am a physician. This recent court ruling is a very hot topic among myself and my colleagues lately, even though it occurred on the opposite coast from us.

I have to say, it makes me think long and hard about stopping to help. I just can't see risking my family's financial security to help someone who may just turn and sue me. Even though the law protects trained medical personnel, I don't want to be the test case! For example, I'm a pediatrician - am I acting out of bounds if I stop to assist an 70yr old man who wrecked his car? Would you be willing to bet all of your assets, your home, your retirement fund, your kids college savings, etc. that this will hold up in court?

I blame the lawyers.

 

[rondog]

I blame the lawyers.

There ya go, the bottom line right there!

 

[DarkSoldier]

Rainbowbob

You wrote:

Quote: " ...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....

...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." End Quote

Very well said. I think that pretty well covers it for those of us who would (in the circumstances you describe) intervene. As to those that would choose (for whatever reason) not to intervene, I think we have to respect their choice as we would want ours to be respected.

Thanks for putting those thoughts into words better than I could have.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[dmazur]

I have some experience in something I think is relevent, though not an auto accident -

At our project, there was an "over the top" concern about removing someone who was injured from a confined space. The people involved (our safety officers) agreed that a broken ankle sustained in a fall, for example, wouldn't be cause to move the injured person on a shop floor. Why, I asked, was it any different in a ventilated confined space?

The argument is based on immediate danger. If the confined space has no other hazards (which were removed before entry), the extrication is more difficult because of the location, but there is no special reason to hazard the injured person further by trying to move him.

I finally got this point across, and we now have a special rescue stretcher (SKED) that our local EMT's have trained with (but don't have money to have as part of their equipment...) for use in confined space extrications.

Now if the person's life is in danger (say a fire breaks out in the confined space), you may be properly concerned about trying to get them out before EMT's arrive.

This is especially important for our crew as it takes 90 minutes or so for EMT's to arrive after calling 911, due to our remote location. My experience has been, the longer it takes, the more tempting it is for co-workers to do something wrong in a misguided attempt to help.

 

[rainbowbob]

DarkSoldier: Thanks for the endorsement. I think it is important to mention that the position I outlined does not mean I ascribe to the proverbial "sheepdog" mentality. If that much overused term has any application at all - it is to describe those individuals who are in uniform and are trained and paid to protect others.

 

[offroaddiver]

I was with my parents when there was a car wreck in front of us. It was a two lane mountain road and miles away from anything. I went to the cars to make sure people were ok. The man behind us was a firefighter. He started with first aid. He had a good kit with him and knew what to do. I checked on both parties involved.

When the park rangers arrived, the women in the car that got hit thought I was the one who was driving the car that hit them. It sunk deep on the way home. What if I was the only one there? What if I got the blame from both involved, IE car A swerved to miss me and hit car B?

Good intentions have gotten me in trouble before. I gave a lady a jump because she left her lights on. When I was closing her hood, the hood got dented. Ended up coughing up $150 for a new hood instead of dealing with goin to court.

People now a days are even thirtier for money. I hesistate before stopping at a wreck that just happened. Or giving anyone any help. I cover my bases as best I can.

Now that this has happened. I will definitely hesistate before doing anything involving being a good samaritan. I think it's funny. The "good samaritan" term comes from a story about help from someone that was not expected to help the injured man, now it seems it will come to stand for the people of good intention who get railroaded because they acted out of kindness.

 

[DarkSoldier]

rainbowbob,

Understood. I never got any "sheepdog" vibe from your post. Just a lot of good common sense.Thanks again.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[JWarren]

Good intentions have gotten me in trouble before. I gave a lady a jump because she left her lights on. When I was closing her hood, the hood got dented. Ended up coughing up $150 for a new hood instead of dealing with goin to court.

Ironically, I know someone else who had this EXACT thing happen to them. Theirs ended up in small claims court.



Its gotten to the point that if you even consider helping someone, you better have a stack of legal waivers, two witnesses, and a Notary Public with you at all times.

That, or walk on by.


-- John