A controversial ruling in California is making people think twice before stopping to help.
California’s Supreme Court has ruled 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.”
But are physicians really protected? This doctor cites colleagues who are “afraid to stop at the scene of an accident and render aid for fear of being sued.”
What about doctors who are not versed in emergency care? Should radiologists and pathologists be comforted by the protections offered in Good Samaritan laws?
I’m on the side of GruntDoc. Trying to add nuance to the language of Good Samaritan laws will only add confusion, increasing the odds that many who can help will simply drive on by.
Related posts:
- Medical terrorists
- Fired for not providing care to illegal immigrants
- Poll: Should doctors be compensated for responding to in-flight medical emergencies?
- A doctor is sued, and blogs his malpractice trial
- Being sued for malpractice, for doctors it’s personal
- Southwest Airlines and medical emergencies
- "Why we’ve never been sued for medical malpractice"
{ 8 comments }
May be we will eventually see the state being named in a class action suit for inhibiting help being administered at the scene of an accident.
The Legislature will probably rewrite the law to try to avoid this misinterpretation by 4 naive justices. Naive, when it comes to understanding the meaning of emergency assistance.
So in case of a fire, you’re supposed to call 911 and just watch the victim(s) suffer?
I had a coworker warn me I shouldn’t walk around BLS certified without personal liability insurance…I didn’t realize how right she was.
Why is she right? Are you planning on drinking and then “rescuing” someone who is not in an emergency situation by doing exactly the wrong thing?
Anonymous 3:17,
The reason to carry liability insurance is to protect against judgments. You do not have to be drunk to be on the losing side.
The minority opinion, in this case, was that she does not deserve immunity from liability, because there is little reason to believe that a true emergency existed. The minority justices did not see any need to rewrite the law to come to this conclusion.
The purpose of the law is not to protect drunk and stoned people. The purpose is to prevent people from being sued for incidental damage. For example, you pull someone out of a car that is actually burning, but you break their arm. You have caused an injury. They would probably have been worse off, if you left them in the car. Without the Good Samaritan law, you are liable for that injury that you caused or contributed to.
The actual ruling is here. I recommend strong coffee. The first half is the majority opinion. That is the part I disagree with. The second part is the minority dissent. The dissenting justices find that she is not protected by the Good Samaritan law. I do not think you will have a problem with their reasoning.
Regardless of the rulings and opinions, what concerns me is that the attention this receives will undoubtedly cause a lot of good-hearted, well-intentioned people to give pause before acting.
You can imagine what I was thinking when a patient told me that she had a history of a “tubal litigation” :0)
GiggleMed,
She sues people on the subway?
Comments on this entry are closed.