Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, re the Good Samaritan case

To the Editors:

I read the "Good Samaritans Get No Aid from the High Court" article on December 19th., and I was initially dismayed.

I'm a General Volunteer for the City of Los Angeles and I've been thinking about this a lot...

The Court is questioning what were apparently inappropriate, unnecessary, and potentially damaging actions by the defendant Ms. Torti -- however well intentioned they may have been. And I see their point. The line between appropriate and inappropriate behavior is properly left to the courts to decide and it's correct, though unsettling, for them to examine this one.

My wife and I know what to do and what not to do to to care for an injured or ill person until the professionals arrive because we took Advanced First Aid classes a few years ago. Does this make our emergency response care 'medical' and therefore covered? I certainly hope so.

The real question here is not why the Good Samaritan laws are in jeopardy, it's why First Aid classes aren't readily available to the public and why more good citizens don't train themselves to help their families, friends, and neighbors in an emergency.

If we took emergency response training seriously, lives would be saved and these kind of injuries prevented.

If Ms. Torti had ever received even rudimentary First Aid training -- as a mandatory class in High School perhaps, she too would have known how to provide appropriate emergency care.


Jonathan Zimmerman

Questions about the 'Good Samaritan' case

I have several questions regarding this case, only one of which was answered by the California Supreme Court brief.

Were alcohol or drugs a factor here? Was Ms. Torti's judgment chemically impaired? According to the brief, Ms. Van Horn and Ms. Torti had smoked marijuana and consumed at least several drinks prior to to the accident. This point, though mentioned in the brief, was apparently not part of the legal arguments.

Had Ms. Torti ever had a First Aid class, or Driver's Ed, or any other class that could have taught her what to do in a situation like this. Had she ever been offered one?

What other outside pressures have been brought to bear here? Is Ms. Van Horn's insurance company behind this? Is she being forced to pursue this, win or lose, in order to obtain the care she needs?

Moderator

"Good Samaritan" gets sued

Here's the text of the California Supreme Court brief in the "Good Samaritan" suit from

"ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR
SPECIAL SESSION — RIVERSIDE COUNTY OCTOBER 7 & 8, 2008" available at

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/rivallexpsum.pdf

Van Horn v. Watson (Torti, Respondent) (consolidated cases) (S152360)

On Halloween night in 2004, plaintiff Alexandra Van Horn, defendant Lisa Torti,and some other friends were relaxing at Torti’s home, where both Van Horn and Torti smoked some marijuana. The friends went to a bar at 10:00 p.m., where they consumed several drinks before leaving at 1:30 in the morning. On the way home, Van Horn and Torti were passengers in two different cars. The driver of the car carrying Van Horn lost control and crashed into a curb and light pole at about 45 miles per hour, causing the vehicle’s front air bags to deploy. The car carrying Torti pulled over and the occupants got out to help.

Torti removed Van Horn from the car. There is a dispute about how she did so. Torti testified that she placed one arm under Van Horn’s legs and the other behind Van Horn’s back and lifted her out of the vehicle. Torti also testified that she believed the car might catch fire or “blow up.” In contrast, Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her from the vehicle by grabbing her arm and yanking her out “like a rag doll.” Other witnesses testified that there was no smoke or any other indication that the car might explode.

Emergency personnel arrived moments later. Plaintiff suffered various injuries, including injury to her vertebrae, and was permanently paralyzed.

Van Horn sued Torti, alleging that she had not been in need of assistance from Torti after the accident and that she sustained injury to her vertebrae only after Torti negligently dragged her out of the vehicle, causing permanent damage to her spinal cord and rendering her a paraplegic. Torti argued that she was immune from suit under Health and Safety Code section 1799.102, which provides “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.” The trial court ruled for Torti.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that section 1799.102 applies only to the provision of medical care and that Torti had provided non-medical care.

The outcome of the case turns on the meaning of “emergency care” in section 1799.102. Van Horn argues that the Legislature intended to immunize only those persons who render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency. Torti, on the other hand, argues that the phrase should be interpreted broadly to include both medical and non-medical care. The parties discuss the meaning of the statute’s language, the way the same or similar words are defined in other statutes, and the legislative history leading to the enactment of the statute and subsequent amendments.

Good Samaritan gets sued.

You see someone you think is in imminent danger. You do the best to help them. You get sued. What would you do?

The Los Angeles Times

California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care.

The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car 'like a rag doll,' allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury.

By Carol J. Williams

December 19, 2008

Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.

But in a sharp 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.

In 1980, the 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."

Although that passage does not use the word "medical" in describing the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there, lawmakers intended to shield "only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.

The high court cited no previous cases involving good Samaritan actions deemed unprotected by the state code, suggesting the challenge of Torti's rescue effort was the first to narrow the scope of the law.

The three dissenting justices argued, however, 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."

Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was "illogical" because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.

"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote for the dissenters. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."

Both opinions have merit, "but I think the majority has better arguments," said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and bioethics law at USC.

Shapiro said 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.

Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court's message was that emergency care "should be left to medical professionals."

Torti's liability has yet to be determined in court, and if the Legislature is unhappy with any judgment arising from the immunity denial, it can revise the code, he concluded.

Torti, Van Horn and three other co-workers from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m., the justices noted as background.

Van Horn was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Anthony Glen Watson, whom she also sued, and Torti rode in the second car. After Watson's car crashed into a light pole at about 45 mph, the rear car pulled off the road and driver Dion Ofoegbu and Torti rushed to help Watson's two passengers escape the wreckage.

Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."

Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.

Neither Torti nor her attorney, Ronald D. Kent, could be reached immediately. Kent's Los Angeles law office said he was in meetings on the East Coast and may not have seen the decision.

Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, disputed the notion that the ruling could have a chilling effect on laymen coming to the rescue of the injured. Good Samaritan laws have been on the books for centuries and state that "if a person volunteers to act, he or she must act with reasonable care," Hutchinson said.

"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car," he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion "irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.

Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of the costs of her life care and loss of potential income. It was her ambition to become a Hollywood makeup artist -- a dream no longer achievable, the lawyer said.

Torti's trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year.


Upon further reflection, and some additional news analysis, this may not be as bad as it sounds. Some legal experts say that if you are a First Responder and acting within your scope of practice (and education...) you are in fact providing appropriate medical care and you can't be sued.

Those of us who are trained know you NEVER move an injured patient without the proper support procedures, equipment, and personnel. In this case, the victim's friend apparently wrenched her out of the car believing she was in danger, when a more careful size up of the situation may have shown there was little danger of fire.

Many violent front end collisions result in oil smoke, steam, and flowing radiator fluids, but rarely do they burn. Vehicle fires are usually the result of damaged fuel tanks and fuel lines -- especially if the fuel pump continues to operating. Modern electric fuel pumps are designed to automatically shut of after a violent impact..

But this is still a very scary precedent.

Moderator