Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
EDITORIAL: Ruling means 'Good Sam' law needs fix
OUR VIEW: Legal clarity will encourage assistance
By North County Times Opinion staff | ∞
Acts by Good Samaritans need to be encouraged in California. Given a recent court ruling, however, the Legislature needs to move quickly to amend existing law to extend legal protection to all reasonable attempts to aid others in an emergency.
The California Supreme Court ruled Dec. 18 that existing statute only legally protects those offering medical assistance, rejecting an argument that the law meant general emergency care. The ruling leaves in limbo those who might otherwise help rescue a drowning person or assist other accident victims.
Existing state law reads: "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 scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered."
The court's ruling arose from a difficult case: A woman allegedly yanked a companion out of a wrecked car "like a rag doll" after she thought the car would burst into flames. The people involved had apparently been drinking and may have been the influence of marijuana, too. Unfortunately, the victim sustained paralyzing injuries from being pulled from the car.
So with this ugly set of facts, where's justice?
Maybe nowhere.
However, if giving aid is protected only when giving medical assistance, what does that do to any impulse for heroism? Care to save that drowning person? Not particularly, if it means thousands of dollars defending a tort claim if the rescue goes south.
Common law, rooted in our English legal tradition, said there was no duty to another's assistance, but if someone does choose to assist, he must exercise due care. So to encourage sensible acts of aid and even heroism, Good Samaritan laws have been enacted.
And given this court decision, the Legislature needs to chime in.
More Stories
Advertisement
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (10602)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (6597)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (5389)
- ESCONDIDO: Border Patrol employee in custody after hatchet attack (5312)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (4975)
- HOUSING: Local median price up for third straight month (45)
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (44)
- FALLBROOK: Peruvian chocolatier living sweet American dream (29)
- ESCONDIDO: Border Patrol employee in custody after hatchet attack (29)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (27)
Advertisement