Legal News

Good Samaritans & the Law: Cali Court Establishes Liability for Rescuers

By Dan Slater

Suppose you pass a man on the sidewalk who’s in the grips of a heart attack. With his last bit of energy he’s able to punch 911 into his cell phone and merely needs you to hit the ’send’ button. Can you be held liable for refusing?

In first-year torts classes, many American law students are surprised to learn that, in this country, there’s no duty to rescue. But consider a corollary: Can you be held liable for a botched rescue attempt that leaves the person in worse shape? Or as torts profs may pose the question, what’s the duty of care for rescuers?

Consider yesterday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court. In a divided opinion, the court ruled that Lisa Torti — a young woman who in good faith pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle after a night of Halloween revelry in 2004 — isn’t immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn’t medical. Torti, according to the L.A. Times, allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her “like a rag doll” from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard. Van Horn was rendered a paraplegic in the accident.

In 1980, the California legislature enacted the Health and Safety Code, which provides that “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.” But Justice Carlos R. Moreno, writing for the majority, ruled that lawmakers intended to shield “only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency.” Here’s the opinion.

In dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing “an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation” on protections for those trying to help. The dissenters argued 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.”

Michael Shapiro, a professor of con law and bioethics law at USC, told the LAT that the majority was correct in interpreting that the legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with “reasonable care,” as the law requires. Shapiro said the court’s message was that emergency care “should be left to medical professionals.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 19, 2008 (boomark / email).