Being a good Samaritan can land Californians in court -- and cost them plenty, perhaps.
Lisa Torti found that out the hard way.
The Los Angeles woman pulled a friend from the wreckage of a car crash only to be sued for allegedly exacerbating the victim's injuries.
Legislators have proposed three bills to alter state law after the California Supreme Court ruled last month that Torti is not shielded from liability as a good Samaritan.
Sen. John Benoit, R-Palm Desert, said the case sends the wrong message.
"People are going to die if others won't get involved because they think they're going to get sued," Benoit said.
Others say blanket protection should not be given to negligence that worsens harm.
University of California-Berkeley law professor Stephen D. Sugarman said citizens are not legally required to intervene.
"But once you do rescue, you're not supposed to act carelessly," he said.
Perhaps a person should be held accountable, for example, if he is warned not to move a victim but does so anyhow, causing a broken neck, Sugarman said.
"Careless rescuers are not good Samaritans, really," Sugarman said. "We don't want people interfering with other people and hurting them a lot worse, right?"
Torti and Alexandra Van Horn smoked some marijuana at Torti's home on Halloween night in 2004, then went with three acquaintances to a bar for several drinks. The group left the tavern in two vehicles about 1:30 a.m., court records said.
Anthony Glen Watson lost control of one of the vehicles, crashing it at 45 mph into a light pole in Los Angeles.
Torti, riding in the second vehicle, rushed to the crash and pulled victim Van Horn from the wreckage.
Torti said she feared the vehicle would explode -- it ultimately did not -- and that she lifted Van Horn out by placing one arm under her legs and the other behind her back.
Van Horn testified, however, that Torti yanked her "like a rag doll," court records said.
Van Horn was paralyzed after suffering liver, vertebrae and other injuries.
Van Horn later filed suit, claiming that Torti's actions were negligent and rendered her a paraplegic.
Numerous issues have not been resolved, including whether the rescue caused the paralysis and whether Torti acted unreasonably.
Torti argued that she was shielded from liability by the good-Samaritan law for people who act in good faith and without profit to render "emergency care at the scene of an emergency."
The California Supreme Court ruled against Torti, 4-3, allowing Van Horn's suit to proceed.
The high court found that lawmakers intended the good-Samaritan law, passed three decades ago, to apply only to emergency medical care.
Professor Julie Davies of McGeorge School of Law said the Torti case could spark questions about where the line is drawn between medical care and general aid.
"If people think they could be sued because of giving aid, I tend to think that would deter them from wanting to rescue," she said.
Two new bills, Assembly Bill 90 and Senate Bill 39, would expand the good-Samaritan law to cover non-medical aid.
Jody Steinberg, Torti's attorney, said the legislation would not affect his case but that he supports it.
"I think we want to be in a society where people help and aren't fearful of lawsuits," he said.
Robert Hutchinson, Van Horn's attorney, could not be reached for comment.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, said he personally assisted in the rescue of a family from an overturned pickup truck several years ago and wants to encourage good Samaritans.
Feuer has proposed a spot bill in hopes of brokering a deal to extend protections to non-medical aid while discouraging irresponsible behavior.
(jsanders(at)sacbee.com.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
Must credit Sacramento Bee
Post new comment