The only precedent that was set is that it applies to MEDICAL care, not just any action. That was a question that was left open by the way the statute was drafted.

However, do you think it’s a bad precedent to tell people that if they’re drunk and high and the situation is NOT an emergency, that they’re not going to be immune from negligence?

“to the predatory attorneys and jackpot juries which already complicate medical practice, and lead to defensive medicine verdicts.”

Who are these “jackpot juries” who are giving unjustified awards? Do you know any victim with one of these awards you want to trade places with? What’s a “defensive medicine verdict”? Something like this one? One where doctors reach conclusions on the wrong information?

Do you believe, under the facts of this case, that the Court reached the wrong opinion? Remember, this case still has to be tried, the only thing heard so far is whether the good samaritan law immunizes this “rescuer”.

But the problem, as you well know is that it sets precedent. Now, how does somebody determine what a ‘life threatening’ situation is, or how about ‘immediate danger’ and what constitutes a ‘good Samaritan’. what if I have had one drink, should I not try to rescue people, well wait, what about the mentally challenged, they might be impaired in the classical sense.

You see where this is going. the law was originally enacted to ensure that somebody is not afraid to try and render assistance. Now, in most jurisdictions, this has been changed to some wording regarding ‘level of medical knowledge’ so a nurse, paramedic or physician who stops to render aid is held to a higher standard than a casual passer by, even though they may not have the benefit of tools of their trade or the equipment needed. This case now opens that up even more, so that the casual bystander may now be afraid to render aid, because, if the person does survive but is injured as a result of action, inaction, or lack of knowledge on their part, they are opening themselves, and by extension their loved ones, to the predatory attorneys and jackpot juries which already complicate medical practice, and lead to defensive medicine verdicts.

This is a completely incorrect statement of the case, and is what happens when you rely on poorly sourced anecdotes in forming your opinions. Steve neglects to mention that at no time was the victim in any imminent danger, nor does he mention that the “rescuer” was drunk and high from smoking marijuana. And she didn’t just “inflict c-spine injuries”, the victim is now paralyzed.

What’s more, the statute was not “overturned”, it was simply held not to apply to this situation.

Now, if Steve believes we should immunize drunk people from the consequences of intervening in non-life threatening situations, then perhaps he needs to advocate it. But to presume that was ever part of the “good samaritan” law is false. A little more thorough examination of the case and the result than steve offers can be found here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20090113.html

now, in california, the best advice is just keep on driving, no matter what you see. better to plead ignorance of the facts that you saw whizzing by then to try and explain to people why you couldn’t take c-spine precautions in the middle of burning wreckage. if the standard is now what the firefighter do, let them respond. sorry if it gets toasty warm in the meantime.

Wait, people hearing the evidence of the case and then deciding the value of the case based on the evidence is equally arbitrary to insurance lobbyists picking a number out of a hat? Really? You’ve got an odd definition of arbitrary, apparently. Of course the damages are different in a jury trial. We’re talking about different people, with different injuries, and different damages. Why would you expect uniformity? That doesn’t make much sense.

Noneconomic damage caps set by legislation is no more arbitrary than the damages awarded in jury trials, which vary all over the map. I’ll take caps set by statute, thank you.

So what’s the rationale in letting people who know nothing about the case decide its value? If you couldn’t care less what the insurance exec makes, why is it your business what the noneconomic loss of the victim is if you’re not on their jury? Short answer: it’s not. So why are you trying to put arbitrary limits on it?

You say it’s meaningless that they go to someone else. It’s meaningless unless you’re the victim considering pursuing a case. Why go to the trouble at that point? Why would you go through a trial just to give the money to someone else when you can just as easily go on disability? On the outside chance you might get an award for $250,000 in noneconomic damages, which will be reduced by what you owe your lawyer AND the expenses in trying it?

That the economic damages go to someone else is absolutely meaningless. They’re economic damages. That’s where they are supposed to go. Same with what the straw man insurance company CEO makes. I could care less.

You’ve just described damages that ultimately go to a third party. You’ve given nothing to the actual victim for their lost quality of life, other than whatever number insurance company lobbyists come up with. Usually it’s about a 1/4 of what their CEO makes a year, for a lifetime injury.

“Sorry if it’s not millions. Sorry if it’s not a jackpot for a lawyer.”

It may well be millions, but again, it’s all going to someone else. And if you set a low cap, there is little incentive for the victim, particularly the elderly, to pursue it. So instead of the responsible party paying these damages, us taxpayers do it. Good policy choice!

You have an odd definition for a jackpot. When I think of winning a jackpot it certainly doesn’t involve risking tens of thousands of my own money and hundreds of hours of my time which I could be getting paid for elsewhere. I think of a jackpot like when I buy the lottery ticket at the convenience store for a $1.