California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care
The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car 'like a rag doll,' allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury.
In a decision that could give pause to would-be good Samaritans, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.
Lisa Torti of Northridge now faces trial for allegedly contributing to the injuries suffered by fellow department store cosmetician Alexandra Van Horn, who was rendered a paraplegic in the car crash on Topanga Canyon Road that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
The high court's narrow definition of who qualifies for immunity when coming to the aid of an accident victim drew criticism within its own ranks, with three of the seven justices deeming the ruling "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.
Writing for the majority in the 4-3 ruling, Justice Carlos R. Moreno said the court's primary duty was to determine the Legislature's intent in immunizing from prosecution certain persons whose good Samaritan acts aggravate or inflict injury.
"No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission," the state's 1980 Health and Safety Code reads.
Because the relevant section is within the code's emergency medical services division, lawmakers probably intended it "to immunize from liability for civil damages only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Moreno wrote.
The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."
In a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the minority deemed "illogical" recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."
