You see a car crash on the side of the road. You think the car might explode. You see a person inside. Should you remove the person? If you do, and inadvertently cause injury, can you be sued?
In California, the answer depends on if you are a medical professional or not. Medical Professionals -- doctors, nurses and emergency medical technicians -- are specifically protected under the Good Samaritan law in California's Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102.
But last month, the California Supreme Court said non-medical Good Samaritans are not protected from lawsuits if they inadvertently or negligently cause harm. In the case of Van Horn v. Watson, the court held that non-medical Good Samaritans are not entitled to liability protection when there is injury as a result of their actions. In that case, Lisa Torti moved Alexa Van Horn out of a car, thinking the car would explode and burn her. Alexa Van Horn alleges that the movement caused her subsequent paralysis.
A quick look at the situation would cause many to conclude (as the New York Times did) that the majority should have applied more common sense and less legal parsing. However, the liability immunity code section at issue is steeped in "medical" references that do back up the opinion. What was missing in the current law is "rescue and care" ("reasonably provided") language, which the Legislature can readily supply to subdue any ambiguity. This change would mesh with the existing common law rule which shields any person who acts with due care in coming to the aid of another.
The California Supreme Court's decision has already led to the introduction of three bills in the legislature. Democrat Mike Feuer, the incoming chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, introduced AB 83, a bill that declares the intent of the legislature to look at the case. Republican John Benoit introduced SB 39, which would extend the liability protection to non-medical Good Samaritans as well. And Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, has authored a bill, AB 90 that would extend the same legal protection to any Good Samaritan offering "medical or non-medical" emergency care.
The New York Times has editorialized against the California Supreme Court decision, saying it was " a disturbingly narrow interpretation that could discourage future good Samaritans from providing help out of fear of being sued." The Times continues, "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."
Read California's Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102 by going to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/. Click on "California Law," then check "Health and Safety Code" and search for section 1799.102.