[JessasMilkMama]

I read this in the paper today:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...lFocAD955DO584

Quote:

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit. Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Do you think the friend was negligent and should be sued for possibly aggravating a back injury? Or was she just trying to help and you couldnt hold it against her?
also, I know you are supposed to leave an injured person as is until an ambulance arrives to safely transport them, but imagine how scared the other woman must have been, thinking the car might explode first.

 

[CallMeKelly]

I think they should allow her to be sued, only because it could happen that someone would act out of malicious intent and injure someone in an accident on purpose and if that ever happened precedence should not be set to deny a possible victim justice.

That said, it is really terrible of that woman to sue someone for trying to help her, she is a UAV in my mind if the article is correct.

I think it is also very unfair to the second victim in this case, the good samaritan. Lawyer costs can ruin a person and this is very unfair.

 

[lotusdebi]

I don't think that the friend was negligent or should be sued. I think this case sets a bad precedent, and could cause fewer people to come to the aid of those in need of help. We have enough of an apathy problem in this country already...

 

[rabrog]

This is exactly why I wouldn't do anything but call 911 in an accident - fear of being sued for trying to help. No, she should not be allowed to sue.

Jenn

 

[MyLittleWonders]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lotusdebi I don't think that the friend was negligent or should be sued. I think this case sets a bad precedent, and could cause fewer people to come to the aid of those in need of help. We have enough of an apathy problem in this country already...

I totally agree with you.

 

[LionTigerBear]

Quote:

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

WTH?? I think this sets a horrible precedent! That woman thought she was risking her life to save her friend's life. At least her conscience is clear. I wonder if the suing "victim" can say the same.

 

[JamesMama]

This sets a scary scary precident.

My DH worked as an EMT and regardless of what people want to think it takes TIME for rescue personnel to get to the site of an accident. Sometimes up to 10-15 minutes. That time is critical. He's seen more than one occasion where the quick actions of a passer-by saved the life of the victim.

It's unfortunate that Ms. Van Horn was seriously injured in the crash, but I truly have a hard time believing that her injuries were from her friend rescuing her, more likely they occurred during the accident. Paralyzed sure as heck beats dead...

With this precedence being set I know I'll think twice should I ever come upon an accident...

 

[angelpie545]

No, she shouldn't be sued. She acted in good faith and probably believed she was saving her friend's life.

 

[Pinoikoi]

The friend should not be sued.. but then I support Good Samaritan laws, so..

 

[southernmommie]

Whatever happened to that law that you could sue if you knew someone was around to help. The "good samaritan" law that I thought we had here in cali??

 

[NiteNicole]

Oh good grief.

Next time I pass an accident, I'll be sure to call someone on my cell and put them on speaker so they can hear me inform the victim that I'm about to pull them from their flaming car and asking if that's ok. Perhaps I should tell my phone-a-friend to rummage around for a tape recorder while I'm at it.

I'm very sorry this woman is suffering and her life is changed, but to sue a friend for HELPING YOU is just low. Don't we have laws that say you MUST stop and help and aren't they spposed to protect us from this kind of ignorant BS?

 

[Cherry Alive]

You should almost always call 911 first when you find people injured in an accident. And unless you see the car is actually on fire, you really should never *ever* move the victims. Moving someone after an accident without properly bracing their neck and spine can cause paralysis-or even kill someone if you don't support them properly. This is what paramedics are trained to do.

I'd have to read more about the circumstances of the "rescue," but from what I've read so far, I think it's acceptable for the victim to sue. Unless they were totally in the middle of nowhere, in the time it took her friend to drag her out, she could have called 911, and the EMTs may have rescued the friend without further injuring her. Even so, the rescuer still could have called 911 and received instructions on how to properly remove her friend from the car.

All good intentions aside, I can't blame someone for being angry when their "good samaritan" caused them to be paralyzed for life due to lack of common sense. I don't 100% know if this is the case or not (ex- it appears the article leaves out important details like the location, whether the care was on fire, and if the victim was conscious enough to be asking her rescuer to stop), but I'd assume if a court gave the green flag for someone to sue over something like this there is probably a substancial reason.

It could very well be like the case of the elderly lady who sued McDonalds over the scalding coffee. When folks first read about it, it sounded absurd until details came out later... Like the fact the coffee was so hot it totally burnt off the skin on her thighs, labia, and buttocks (she actually needed skin grafts).

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

[mamadelbosque]

IDK, the precedent it sets is both good and scary. It Could keep people from helping others, but then again, good samaritan laws aren't total. They only protect you when you've been TRAINED to do something and are doing it PROPERLY - so if you don't have CPR training and you try to do CPR on somebody an hurt them, you AREN'T protected. If you aren't trained to set somebody's broken arm/leg, an you try to and hurt them, you AREN'T protected... So, this lady tried to help but maybe hurt her in the process. She was obviously Not trained (or if she was, she screwed up), so she can be sued. Thats how this stuff works.

 

[kmeyrick]

Okay, get this- in my school district, over the years, SIX teachers have been sued and lost their jobs for doing the Heimlich maneuver on choking students. If they aren't certified to do it, they aren't protected, so once parents see bruises they sue. So we are told to call 911 instead. Meanwhile, we ought to just let a kid die. I personally would want to sue if no one even tried to save my child. And what's wrong with a thank you? Good grief. I think a life-saving act that was made in good faith even if it wasn't perfect should be protected, at least to some extent.

 

[AllyRae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmeyrick Okay, get this- in my school district, over the years, SIX teachers have been sued and lost their jobs for doing the Heimlich maneuver on choking students. If they aren't certified to do it, they aren't protected, so once parents see bruises they sue. So we are told to call 911 instead. Meanwhile, we ought to just let a kid die. I personally would want to sue if no one even tried to save my child. And what's wrong with a thank you? Good grief. I think a life-saving act that was made in good faith even if it wasn't perfect should be protected, at least to some extent.

That is just awful! My 1 year old DD was saved by DS's teacher who saw DD choking on a toy, unable to breathe, so she did the Heimlich. I don't care if she was certified or not (I didn't even ask), and I don't care if there were bruises (there weren't). My daughter is ALIVE because a teacher thought on her feet.

Sheesh, would these people rather have a dead child or a child with a bruise? Oh wait, had the child died, the school would have been sued anyhow.

 

[umsami]

I'm really shocked by the ruling.. and yet it a unanimous decision.

I think it will set a horrible precedent.... and will likely lead to more deaths and serious injuries because people will be afraid to help.

 

[Cardinal]

She should not be able to sue. All this will end up doing is costing lives in the long run. Why? Because now people are going to be much more hesitant to help someone in need because they fear being sued.

America. *sigh* Sometimes I am ashamed to live here.

 

[Cardinal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmeyrick Okay, get this- in my school district, over the years, SIX teachers have been sued and lost their jobs for doing the Heimlich maneuver on choking students. If they aren't certified to do it, they aren't protected, so once parents see bruises they sue. So we are told to call 911 instead. Meanwhile, we ought to just let a kid die. I personally would want to sue if no one even tried to save my child. And what's wrong with a thank you? Good grief. I think a life-saving act that was made in good faith even if it wasn't perfect should be protected, at least to some extent.

Ugh. I wouldn't sue even if my kids had broken ribs from the heimlich being performed. Why? because at least they'd be ALIVE!!!

 

[kmeyrick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllyRae That is just awful! My 1 year old DD was saved by DS's teacher who saw DD choking on a toy, unable to breathe, so she did the Heimlich. I don't care if she was certified or not (I didn't even ask), and I don't care if there were bruises (there weren't). My daughter is ALIVE because a teacher thought on her feet. Sheesh, would these people rather have a dead child or a child with a bruise? Oh wait, had the child died, the school would have been sued anyhow.

You are an awesome woman, babe.

But a lot of people see dollar signs in their eyes and basic gratitude goes out the window.

 

[grniys]

This makes me so angry.

Now, if I'm in a serious car accident and need immediate help, well... let's just hope I or whoever else in the car with me is able to survive while an ambulance takes time to get there (because it does take a while sometimes) because no one is going to be willing to help now! This is just stupid.

As for the teacher thing... personally, I think all teachers should be certified in cpr. It wouldn't take much time and I'd feel so much safer knowing my kids teacher could at least try to save their life if they're choking.

Why are people so greedy? I just don't understand it. They should be thankful to be ALIVE, not upset that someone saved their life.