View Full Version : Fuck California
Le Goat
12-21-2008, 01:48 AM
LOS ANGELES – Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.
California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.
Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.
"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.
Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.
Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.
Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.
Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.
Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.
Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.
mongo
12-21-2008, 01:50 AM
cali is full of fakes and *******. what the fuck to you expect?
IdiotBrain
12-21-2008, 01:55 AM
TiM would fit right in.
Le Goat
12-21-2008, 01:59 AM
cali is full of fakes and *******. what the fuck to you expect?
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/chknfaqr/122983556862.jpg
The GWD
12-21-2008, 02:16 AM
Chick must have been strong to rip her out of the car like a rag doll.
Saw this story earlier today. Was gonna post it here but I didn't want to look like a dumbass.
Nice job, Goat.
Mustard
12-21-2008, 02:26 AM
Great thread title.
Sticky?
taters
12-21-2008, 02:53 AM
Their legal system is, well, its an example of over complexity at its worst. Unfortunately, as one of the worlds largest economies, one of the nations most diverse states and the nations most populous, it has to be.
Their entire state constitution, government and administration needs to be reorganized from the top down, not as a state but in a form more resembling a medium sized country. Unfortunately its that very need that is the reason it never happens (the ensuring political conflicts would shut the state down).
California may suck ass, but it has the same thing going for it that shitholes like Utah, Wyoming, Mississippi, Louisiana and even Iran do.
They arent Texas.
Okie Medicvet
12-21-2008, 03:11 AM
that is so fucked up that this case is even seeing the light of day. Just proves that no good deed goes unpunished. I wish the car had exploded and she was in it.
taters
12-21-2008, 03:25 AM
In all fairness, model code/common law of torts states that once you begin to render aid, you assume joint or full responsibility for whomever you are assisting.
It sounds crazy, but it prevents people from playing hero and not knowing what they are doing. Do I agree with it, no. But theres purpose in it.
Okie Medicvet
12-21-2008, 03:31 AM
I just think that the 'solution' is going to be worse than the problem in this case. It will end up killing more people than it saves.
Le Goat
12-21-2008, 10:19 AM
Saw this story earlier today. Was gonna post it here but I didn't want to look like a dumbass.
Nice job, Goat.
i lol'd
Le Goat
12-21-2008, 10:21 AM
In all fairness, model code/common law of torts states that once you begin to render aid, you assume joint or full responsibility for whomever you are assisting.
It sounds crazy, but it prevents people from playing hero and not knowing what they are doing. Do I agree with it, no. But theres purpose in it.
No. It doesn't prevent anyone from playing hero.
A true Hero/Good Samaritan doesn't ponder the legal aspects of their action when making a split second, life saving decision.
Kerjack
12-21-2008, 11:12 AM
I just keep telling myself as long as she doesn't get convicted no harm no foul (on the courts). Being able to sue in itself isn't bad right? right? Hmmm...
Will-Kill
12-21-2008, 01:50 PM
What really sucks is the person is sueing her friend, I can understand a complete stranger, but a friend, not a very good friend.
BIG PIZZLE
12-21-2008, 01:56 PM
She can sue all she wants but she may not win. This is the land of opportunity.
What really sucks is the person is sueing her friend, I can understand a complete stranger, but a friend, not a very good friend.
It's probably not her friend, it's her friend's insurance company, it may even be her insurance company.
Claydon
12-21-2008, 04:22 PM
Hmm, yes, it good to know that we are unable to have tort reform in this country.
Hoser
12-21-2008, 04:30 PM
Maybe he figured this would happen if he didn't help
http://k1ri.com/images/jail.jpg
Archangel
12-21-2008, 04:47 PM
Is there any field in which Americans prefer common sense over some bullshit designed to make lawyers rich?
Claydon
12-21-2008, 05:20 PM
Is there any field in which Americans prefer common sense over some bullshit designed to make lawyers rich?
You would need to speak with the left in this country. The left feels that the access to trial lawyers is a way of defending the little guy, whereas many of us on the right see it as a way to increase the cost for everything we do/need which in turn hurts the little guy. Basically the trial lawyer association pays unbelievable amounts of money to the democrats, and the democrats in turn stifle any concept of tort reform.
Morfin
12-21-2008, 07:38 PM
Hmm, yes, it good to know that we are unable to have tort reform in this country.
Stick to veterinary issues and stay away from the law -- you don't know what you're talking about. There has been "tort reform" in virtually every state in terms of damage caps in medical malpractice claims, no fault automobile legislation, and caps in terms of product liability.
You all may not like the result, but there are reasons for this decision, which taters actually accurately set out earlier in this thread. I have not read this opinion, but I will if this thread continues. The prinicple at issue -- the rescue doctrine -- provides that no one has a duty to rescue anyone, to be a good samaritan. However, if you undertake to rescue someone, then you are obligated to use reasonable care. The reason behind the principle is that, by acting without any idea of how to properly rescue, you may 1) create a greater injury; or 2) cause a knowing rescuer to forego attempting the rescue because someone is already acting. In this case, to the extent that someone is acting negligently -- yanking on a person to get her out of the car -- may seem to be punishing the Good Samaritan, and that position has merit to it.
Change the facts. Let's assume that a pedestrian is hit by a car, suffering bruises. A Good Samaritan offers to take her to the hospital and on the way, while driving 100 mph, she runs a stop sign, gets hit and the pedestrian now has two broken legs. By acting negligently, the Good Samaritan has caused additional injury, injury that would not have occurred (under my hypothetical) if the Good Samaritan had acted reasonably, or if the pedestrian had been transported by an ambulance.
The court's job -- and it is a difficult one here -- it to balance the interests of the injured person, with the social policy of not wanting to discourage future Good Samaritans. And there are good arguments on both sides.
However, to just write this off as "stupid" or an indication that tort reform is needed, is an ignorant, knee-jerk reaction.
Genius
12-21-2008, 08:30 PM
You would need to speak with the left in this country. The left feels that the access to trial lawyers is a way of defending the little guy, whereas many of us on the right see it as a way to increase the cost for everything we do/need which in turn hurts the little guy. Basically the trial lawyer association pays unbelievable amounts of money to the democrats, and the democrats in turn stifle any concept of tort reform.
So this is my fault? Fuck you.
Claydon
12-21-2008, 08:32 PM
So this is my fault? Fuck you.
YES! Yes it is!
Le Goat
12-21-2008, 08:52 PM
Change the facts. Let's assume that a pedestrian is hit by a car, suffering bruises. A Good Samaritan offers to take her to the hospital and on the way, while driving 100 mph, she runs a stop sign, gets hit and the pedestrian now has two broken legs. By acting negligently, the Good Samaritan has caused additional injury, injury that would not have occurred (under my hypothetical) if the Good Samaritan had acted reasonably, or if the pedestrian had been transported by an ambulance.
No, that's not the same thing. The person going 100mph for a bruise is knowingly and willfully putting both of them in danger, not to mention countless others along the way. This case revolved around a friend who rightfully assumed that a car that hit a pole going 45mph (a very good rate of speed) would explode and kill the person inside. So she took action that she reasonably assumed would save that persons life.
You give terrible examples.
BIG PIZZLE
12-21-2008, 08:54 PM
That's actually a good example. But basically, I guess it depens on how reasonable the assumption is, and that is for a jury to decide.
Le Goat
12-21-2008, 08:59 PM
It may depend at how reasonable the assumption is, and that is for a jury to decide. That's actually a good example.
No, it's a terrible example. In no way did she endanger multiple drivers/pedestrians. She came up onto a serious crash, legitimately assumed (evidence permitting of course) that the crash was going to cause a fire and kill her friend so she acted in a way that would save the life of a human. A 'bruise' and subsequent rush to the hospital is nowhere close
BIG PIZZLE
12-21-2008, 09:03 PM
You're an idiot.
freegood
12-21-2008, 09:49 PM
It sounded like the defendant watched one too many action movies. She probably planned to rip her friend out with mad adrenaline and dived three yards to escape the explosion.
Hodge
12-21-2008, 10:05 PM
I don't agree completely with this but there are a few questions that need to be answered:
1. Was the car running? If not, why was there a fear the car might explode? If it was, why not turn it off and wait for EMS?
2. Was there an profuse bleeding internally or externally? Besides the feared 'explosion' was there any real reason to pull this person from the car?
I'm not in favor of suing (*sp?) a friend or anybody that tries to help me but common sense does have to be exercised as best as possible (yes, I am considering the onset of adrenaline). As a ski patroller this is something I will have to do up to several times daily to ensure the Good Samaritan Law protects me while performing my duties.
It seems heartless what she is doing but now she is a paraplegic. Now she has to deal with the physical, emotional, and financial damage that she had been caused.
I think the better route of plan would be to investigate whether her friend did indeed cause the damage though and go from there. Being in an automobile when the accident occurred she should be able to get money from someone.
taters
12-21-2008, 10:44 PM
No. It doesn't prevent anyone from playing hero.
A true Hero/Good Samaritan doesn't ponder the legal aspects of their action when making a split second, life saving decision.
Fair enough, but whats to stop a person who doesnt know what they are doing from interfering and making things worst?
One complaint cops always make is so called 'good samaritan hero's' tend to fuck up and hinder responses to dangerous situations more than help. Subsequently, their actions can hinder investigation and prosecution.
Example - A pulls a gun and is robbing B. C sees, pulls his gun out and starts shooting at B. B drops A's belongings, runs away being chased by C. C's shots not only hit B, but A, and a bystander D. Who is responsible?
(right out of torts)
Criminally, the robber is responsible. Civilly, the Robber (A) AND the person who got involved (C), whom otherwise may (reasonably) have prevented injury to both B and D.
Like I said, its not at all perfect, but it does have logical reasoning. And its not new, it was adopted from older English Common law.
Le Goat
12-22-2008, 09:39 AM
That's a fair assesment as well. You of all people know that anything can happen. Yes, I've seen people fuck up investigations, but for the most part, it's nothing they're consciously trying to do. No one really knows how they'll react under pressure until you're faced with it. That's exactly why officers/fireman/soldiers/EMT's are put through their paces and trained on how to react. But even then, it's not always the right decision. Hell, doctors fuck up A LOT.
I just don't see this opinion being popular anywhere but Cali.
This thread title is all wrong.
It should be:
"Fuck Everywhere That Isn't Texas."
Le Goat
12-22-2008, 09:42 AM
It should be:
"Fuck Everywhere That Isn't Texas."
I second this
And so it should be.
Peasants! Make it happen!
RedBEARD
12-22-2008, 09:54 AM
Could the defense not insist on some sort of analysis as to when the damage to the injured party occurred? I'm not sure if it's possible to pinpoint when that sort of injury happens, especially in a situation like this where the timetable was quite narrow, but even so if it could be done it could eliminate the defendant from liability entirely.
VoxAngelikus
12-22-2008, 10:22 AM
Has it been proven that the woman is a paraplegic because her friend pulled her out of the car? Isn't it possible that she could be a paraplegic because her car hit a light pole at 45 m.p.h.?
That said, any idiot should know that if someone is in an accident, you don't just pull them out of the car like Superman. If they have a neck or back injury you are not supposed to move them at all because you could cause more damage.
BIG PIZZLE
12-22-2008, 10:38 AM
All of the questions everyone is asking can only be answered is the gimp bitch is allowed to sue. That's why the court allowed the lawsuit. Anyone who says, "this is a joke!!... what about---? and what about---?" You agree with the court, even though you dont know it.
Morfin
12-22-2008, 10:38 AM
Yes, the issue in the lawsuit is called "proximate cause." You, as a defendant are only responsible for the damage/injury that you cause. It is her(the plaintiff's) burden of proof to present sufficient evidence showing that her condition was X and now, because of the helpful lady's negligence, her condition is worse. She can recover only for what additional injury she has resulting from the negligence. If she would have been a paraplegic from the accident and the helpful lady's pulling did not make that worse -- she faced a life in a wheelchair regarding of whether the helpful lady was negligent or not -- then there can be no recovery.
redsox39
12-22-2008, 11:28 AM
It sounded like the defendant watched one too many action movies. She probably planned to rip her friend out with mad adrenaline and dived three yards to escape the explosion.
I rented out a 2004 Jeep Cherokee. it was rear ended at less than 15 miles per hour. The Jeep Exploded. So it does happen. Some models more than others, but unless you are a car expert, how are you to know?
This is bullshit and (shudder) Arch summed it up right with his "common sense" question.
redsox39
12-22-2008, 11:30 AM
Has it been proven that the woman is a paraplegic because her friend pulled her out of the car? Isn't it possible that she could be a paraplegic because her car hit a light pole at 45 m.p.h.?
That said, any idiot should know that if someone is in an accident, you don't just pull them out of the car like Superman. If they have a neck or back injury you are not supposed to move them at all because you could cause more damage.
Yes! Exactly. You are supposed to wait until the Paramedics arrive OR the Car turns into a fireball. Which ever come first.
Ghostrider
12-24-2008, 02:29 AM
cali is full of fakes and *******. what the fuck to you expect?
I expect people will die unnecessarily more often.
Yelram
12-24-2008, 07:19 AM
Where is the driver of the vehicle in this lawsuit? How can you sue the person that tries to save you from a wrecked vehicle, and not the person who wrapped it around a pole?
Morfin
12-24-2008, 10:57 AM
You sue both; there is no "you can only sue one party" rule.
I actually have 3 million in liability insurance for this kind of thing.
Swurgen
12-24-2008, 11:29 AM
I actually have 3 million in liability insurance for this kind of thing.
Find yourself frequently performing acts of heroic strength do you?
I just hope that the samaritan gets off and then sues the chair out from under this ungrateful gimpy bitch. I also want the gimp to get tickets for whatever the fuck she was doing that forced her to hit the fucking pole. Reckless driving at the very least. I also want her to pay for the fucking pole that she fucking hit. Then I want her shot dead lest she continue to be the waste of oxygen that she is today.
Find yourself frequently performing acts of heroic strength do you?
I just hope that the samaritan gets off and then sues the chair out from under this ungrateful gimpy bitch. I also want the gimp to get tickets for whatever the fuck she was doing that forced her to hit the fucking pole. Reckless driving at the very least. I also want her to pay for the fucking pole that she fucking hit. Then I want her shot dead lest she continue to be the waste of oxygen that she is today.
It comes with some of my certifications. Last guy I pulled out of a vehicle was already dead, so he ain't going to sue.
Claydon
12-24-2008, 06:13 PM
It comes with some of my certifications. Last guy I pulled out of a vehicle was already dead, so he ain't going to sue.
But the dead ones ALWAYS have relatives.
But the dead ones ALWAYS have relatives.
This guy was a real winner, he beat his girlfriend.
This is why you should watch people die instead of trying. It's really what we all deserve at this point. We as a society are pathetic.
Fuh Q
12-24-2008, 08:00 PM
I think maybe the film industry has made people think that cars are more prone to combustion than they actually are. Having said that, she didnt know that, what was she supposed to do, stand there and watch? And she was in a car crash, is there any conclusive proof that it was the friend that caused the injury rather than the crash?
If it was the friend who caused it, then of course the victim is due financial compensation from her.