At least in California...
What is this world coming too? As you know it’s the holidays and with that comes office parties and people celebrating the holidays with friends and family and in this case co-workers.
Lisa Torti and Alexandra Van Horn attended the party. On the way home from the party Van Horn was in an accident. She was the front seat passenger of a car that slammed into a light pole. The car was traveling 45 mph when it slammed into the pole.
Now this brings about a couple questions about the crash itself. Were the occupants drunk? Or drinking? What was the speed limit where the crash occurred? The main stream media has seemed to have left out a lot of details about the crash for some reason.
Anyway, her co-worker, Torti, was following behind Van Horns vehicle when the accident occurred and Torti ran to the car and feared the car was going to explode.
What would any reasonable person do in this circumstance? You think a car is about to explode and someone is in the car, what would you do?
Torti elected to help her co-worker and remove her from the wreckage.
Now as a paramedic and being on many, many, many vehicle accidents I can tell you especially right after an accident occurs the scene can be chaotic and sometimes appear a lot worse than the accident is. You usually have dirt and dust flying through the air, not to mention the dust from the airbags (if Van Horns car had airbags). Debris from the car(s) involved damaged property and injuries to passengers and bystanders. Anyway, accident scenes are nasty looking when the accident happens.
Torti pulled Van Horn from the car because she thought the car was going to explode. Torti thought she was saving her friends life.
Torti is now being sued. Van Horn claims because Torti treated her like a “rag doll” that she is now paraplegic.
Never mind the accident she was just in. Never mind she slammed into a light pole at 45 mph, never mind there has been no other details of the crash released, Van Horn elected to sue her co-worker for trying to do the right thing.
Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that a person is not obligated to come to someone’s aid. If, however, a person elects to come to someone’s aid he or she has a duty to exercise due care.
Torti had argued that she should be protected because she was providing medical care when she pulled her friend from the wreck.
Now even as a paramedic we are trained to remove a person from danger if any exists when we arrive.
And as stupid as this court ruling might be, removing someone from a car you think is going to explode is part of our medical care as a pre hospital care professional. This is not something new and has been around longer than I have. Remove a patient from danger. Pretty simple, plain everyday language, it all comes down to protecting the patient from other harm he or she may suffer when the patient is unable to care for themselves.
Of course the attorney said he was happy with the ruling. Why wouldn’t he be happy, he just got the opportunity to make a crap load of money because of a stupid court ruling.
But of course we are talking about California. That should say enough.
Good Samaritans’ beware. Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.
And when it comes to Van Horn, I watched a video of her thanking a Good Samaritan for saving her and her daughters life when they were caught in a flash flood. The video showed the Good Samaritan helping Van Horn and her daughter from the car when it hit a small walking path type bridge as it was being washed away in the flood waters.
In the land of magical movies and a place people go to make dreams come true, I guess Van Horn and attorney are ready to celebrate Christmas with dollar signs in their eyes. They have images of sugar plums (or dollar signs) in their heads as they rejoice over the recent court ruling. Merry Christmas.
2 comments:
If in fact, as you suggest, Torti acted as any "reasonable person" would, then she is not liable--that's precisely the standard that is applied in negligence cases.
What's puzzling to me is why there is so much surprise over this case and why, in particular, so much angst is being laid at the court's doorstep. The ruling you quote here has been well-settled law in most jurisdictions for a very long time.
I am aware that is one of the standards applied in negligence cases. What would a reasonable person do?
What puzzles me is why an attorney would even consider a case like this.
This day and age people are scared to do anything to help their neighbor without fear of a lawsuit.
This ruling just cleared the path for a Good Samaritan to be sued.
I have been trying to find out, did the car catch on fire or not and no one seems to know, not to mention they refuse to answer any other question regarding this case. As I have posted in the blog, was there alcohol, drugs, etc. involved?
Wonder how she would have liked to stayed in the car if it did burn up? Who could she have sued then?
The ruling was just handed down and has not been in place for a long time.
The ruling has done nothing but make people even more scared to do the right thing and help someone in need.
The angst being laid at the court’s doorstep is justified.
People seem to be getting sick and tired of the “games” attorneys play to make more money.
I mean there are so many lawsuits I could quote here to prove my point
Like the McDonalds case because a person was burned when she spilled hot coffee on herself, she sued and won. Granted this case was over turned in appeal, but she won a law suit because coffee was hot.
I could spend hours on this topic, but just to make a point there are many frivolous lawsuits filed and doing nothing but wasting the courts time and costing people a heck of a lot of money and for what I ask?
Is it actually justice?
Or is it just another attorney wanting to make a name for himself and add some extra holiday cash to his paycheck.
I personally think attorneys have lost the concept of what there actual purpose of existence is.
Post a Comment