Good Samaritan Being Sued

[Eternal_Rapture]

Lisa Torti is being sued by a fellow co worker, Alexandra Van Horn. This comes about from an accident that happened after both left a bar in two separate cars. The car in which Van Horn was a passenger went out of control and hit a light pole. Torti witnessing the accident got out of her car to go pull her out, thinking that it could catch on fire any second because she saw smoke.

Torti said she pulled Horn out safely, with one arm under her legs, and one under her back, but Horn said that she yanked her out by her arm. After this incident Horn was left a paraplegic, and is suing Torti for this.

What do you think?

Here is a link to a full, better prepared article.

http://mobile.latimes.com/detail.jsp?key=196377&rc=top&full=1

 

[curlycrouton]

Horn is evil.

And, source?

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I'm not so sure it's Horn herself, but more likely her insurance company. Your insurance contract has a clause on it that says they can sue whoever is responsible for your injuries in your name. Given how much money a paraplegic is going to cost the insurance company, they are going to start gunning hard and nasty.

Dunno though, gimme a link and let me flip through the facts.

 

[Eternal_Rapture]

Horn is evil.

And, source?

Its up.

 

[curlycrouton]

I'm not so sure it's Horn herself, but more likely her insurance company. Your insurance contract has a clause on it that says they can sue whoever is responsible for your injuries in your name. Given how much money a paraplegic is going to cost the insurance company, they are going to start gunning hard and nasty.

Dunno though, gimme a link and let me flip through the facts.

On second thoughts, I'd say what Mr. Jeffries said.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

"Torti's liability has yet to be determined in court, and if the Legislature is unhappy with any judgment arising from the immunity denial, it can revise the code, he concluded."

The fat lady hasn't sung yet on this one.

"Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of the costs of her life care and loss of potential income."

And once they set the sum, they can fight over that as well. She was ruled negligent, they never said how negligent.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I'm wondering if she was even ruled negligent--from what I can pick up, it seems Horn sued Torti for negligence, Torti got the suit dismissed on the basis of an immunity, the higher court said the immunity didn't apply, now the suit can go forward.

Huh, I think you're right. F***ing California is its own planet when it comes to laws anyway. Why on Earth would you set a legal precedent that discourages people from removing their friends from burning vehicles?

 

[Alex_P]

Was her fear of the car catching fire reasonable?
Did her actions cause additional harm to the injured person?

-- Alex

 

[fluffylandmine]

Was her fear of the car catching fire reasonable?
Did her actions cause additional harm to the injured person?

-- Alex

1. It's a circumstantial fear. The car could just be smoking or a possible firestorm depending upon what happened to the car after said rescue will determine that.
2. The rescue did cause additional injuries, yet they are much less than the other option(death or a stronger form of permanent mutilation).

 

[wewontdie11]

That's just not right. It really is tragic that somebody lost the use of their legs but the woman obviously had the best intentions at heart, and depending if the car actually caught fire after or not she could have saved her life. People really should seek comfort in other forms than monetary.

My ex was a lifeguard at a pool, and she had to sign a disclaimer saying that she could not administer any medical care to a person besides basic first aid (e.g. CPR or bandages). This meant that if a person, for arguments sake, had a severe allergic reaction to something and needed a shot of adrenaline, she would not be able to administer it to save the persons life, just in case it somehow went wrong and she or the pool company were held liable.

If I was in a similar position where I felt a persons life was at stake I'd try and save them even if I knew I could be sued.

 

[Wislong]

It's the modern day gone mad.

In life-saving, we were told that if we had a choice between saving a child and a 45 - 65 year old, go for the older one, even if it's your own child.

I wouldn't think twice about saving my own child, even if it meant them not having a greater chance to survive. And I would drag someone out of a burning car, if they were just in a car crash ... on the way back from the pub.

 

[fix-the-spade]

As the old saying goes:

Let the fuckers burn, less paper work.

Reading from that page, I don't think this woman is evil per se, she's had her life turned upside down and is looking for anything other than random chance to blame.
It could also be said that being neither trained nor entirely sober by the sound of things Torti was not in a fit state to judge the situation or take action.

It's still wrong though, you don't sue the person who pulled you out of a car crash alive.

 

[Alex_P]

It's still wrong though, you don't sue the person who pulled you out of a car crash alive.

If you truly think they acted unreasonably and ended up harming you in the process, you should.

"Good samaritans" shouldn't be liable for accidents. They should be liable for negligence. I don't think it's entirely clear which one happened here.

-- Alex

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

I was under the impression that there things called the good Samaritan acts. Under these laws someone who has been legally proven to be doing selfless acts under the time span of which the actions of the defendant took place cannot be sued for those actions. Or did I miss something?

 

[sirdanrhodes]

I wish that she was left to die, anyone who potentially endangers themselves to save someone else is nice enough to be not sued by some cash grabbing arsehole.

It's people like this that will slowly kill my faith in humanity.

 

[Jharry5]

That doesn't sound fair at all really. Would the person who had to be rescued prefer to risk death if the car exploded? (I know it could have been the insurance company that filed the lawsuit, in which case, would they have preferred to see one of their customers run the risk of dying?)

 

[Eternal_Rapture]

I'm wondering if she was even ruled negligent--from what I can pick up, it seems Horn sued Torti for negligence, Torti got the suit dismissed on the basis of an immunity, the higher court said the immunity didn't apply, now the suit can go forward.

Huh, I think you're right. F***ing California is its own planet when it comes to laws anyway. Why on Earth would you set a legal precedent that discourages people from removing their friends from burning vehicles?

I agree. Now what, do I have to pull out a written consent form for someone to sign, before I help save them from a burning pile of ruble, or do I just stand by and watch, and then possibly be sued for not doing anything.

 

[EXPLICITasian]

this is the exact basis of an edisode of that old show ED, anyone member?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Why did they drive home from the bar?...

 

[rec_rm]

In Canada the Good Samaritan Act is a provincial matter and subject to change depending on which province you are in. I'd assume The US is the same with each state having different laws. Also it is not one law but instead an umbrella term for any law that protects rescuer from suit from a victim. Frankly I too would blame the insurance company and not the person for this lawsuit. Neither would I blame the supreme court. They exist to interpret the law, not set or change it. If this action is not allowed it's up to the state government to change the law.

Oh and Duty to Rescue acts are something completely different and once again are different for every province. I know in Alberta you are only required by law to act if you are certified to do so while in Quebec (correct me if I'm wrong please) you have to certified or not. If this act does exist then it within everyone's best interest to be familiar with it. The fear of being screwed between both acts are baseless. Worst case scenario a whole ton of lawyers get stuck in a long court battle in your interest and you are eventually let off anyways. Pure Chaos would ensue if you lost that battle, and the state would slowly decompose into social disorder.