Thankfully, lawyers were scarce in Biblical days…
The story out of California regarding the "good samaritan" being sued after pulling her friend from a car following a horrific automobile accident is both disturbing– and uplifting. From Overlawyered.com:
California’s Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that the state’s “Good Samaritan” law providing tort immunity for rescuers applies only to medical personnel providing medical help at an emergency scene, and not to civilians.
“Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.” (SF Chronicle).
Unless you’ve got medical training, then, think twice about offering to help.
This is just so wrong. How many times have we watched news stories depicting some poor injured person someplace (the man hit by a car in Hartford, CT some months back comes to mind as but one example) in need with people passing by without helping? Generally most people become outraged at such callousness. But now, thanks to the idiots on the California Supreme Court, this might end up being the rule. After all, why risk your own well-being and station in life? The Overlawyered post continues:
Docbloggers have been discussing the decision since then, with GruntDoc siding with the dissent, SymTym countering on behalf of the majority, and Throckmorton reporting that even being on the right side of the law isn’t enough to provide reassurance nowadays:
“Most of my colleagues are afraid to stop at the scene of an accident and render aid for fear of being sued. The Good Samaritan Law is supposed to prevent this fear of suits but no one seems to believe that it will offer any protection.”
Nice, eh? No wonder people dislike lawyers so much… deservedly so. But, through this, there is one bit of good news, showing that despite all the stupidity, all is not bad. There are indeed, still good people left that really do get it: The Boy Scouts of America. And they have been on this, apparently, since the start of this sad affair. From BSA Legal.org:
Boy Scouts of America submitted a friend of the court brief to the California Supreme Court in a case about the interpretation of that state’s “Good Samaritan” statute. Van Horn v. Watson, No. S152360. The Good Samaritan statute, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1799.102, protects from liability those who provide emergency care in good faith at the scene of an emergency. An intermediate appellate court interpreted the statute as applying only to “medical” care in a “medical” emergency and concluded that the statute did not protect a rescuer who pulled someone from a car after a collision because she feared the car would catch fire or blow up.
Boy Scouts of America teaches youth and their leaders to “be prepared,” to “do a good turn daily,” and “to help other people at all times.” Because of their values and training, Scouts do not hesitate to help fellow citizens in need. From 2004 through 2006, Boy Scouts of America awarded medals to over 80 Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in California for saving lives, and thousands of Boy Scouts have earned merits badges for Emergency Preparedness and Lifesaving. Boy Scouts of America is concerned, however, that the lower court’s construction of California law will discourage citizens from helping one another, especially in emergencies, and subject well-intentioned rescuers to liability. Scouts who help others in time of emergency deserve the gratitude and encouragement of the State and not exposure to law suits.
Good for them!