Good Samaritans Need Not Apply

Here's a Christmas story for you: the California Supreme Court in a boneheaded decision, ruled that a woman who became a paraplegic after a car accident could sue the friend who pulled her out of the car.

That is, Good Samaritan protection laws don't apply here because the assistance attempted was not medical assistance. The assistance may or may not have worsened the victim's injuries; the courts will determine that later.

Wouldn't you think a helper would be more liable attempting medical assistance than say, offering a blanket? Will the possibility of being sued make someone less apt to help a lost child in a mall, for example? That's not medical care. How many people will be injured or die because a potential Good Samaritan must weigh the risk of getting sued before offering a helping hand?

Remember the New Yorker who jumped off the subway platform to help a man who fell off the platform as he went into a seizure? With a train approaching, the hero pulled the man between the rails and covered his convulsing body with his own. Lying still between the tracks, both men escaped injury. But odds were against that happy ending.

I can see how someone trying to help might cause harm, but the law needs to protect people acting in good faith. This California ruling could potentially affect how people view their fellow man. Is a lawsuit as good as a winning lottery ticket? Is everyone looking for chance to win, including that bleeding woman on the side of the road?

The injured woman didn't care that the person who came to her rescue is a friend? Excuse me, was a friend. Who needs friends when millions of dollars are at stake?

Because it is Christmas, I choose to believe that people will aid someone in distress despite the backward effort of the California Supreme Court. But ask me again in January.