Are you a Good Samaritan?

[geauxtohell]

I love it when no one whats to hear a different world view other then their own.

I love it when someone makes a statement on a message board and then gets all pissed when they are challenged on it.

Until now, you've failed to provide a single instance to support your claims.

Basically, you've stomped your feet and insisted that you are right.

 

[Madeline]

In NJ, the avg. Joe can assist in an emergency, but a professional healthcare worker, like a nurse or doctor, is subject to a lawsuit. How effed up is that? Thank the lawyers.

Do you have examples of this?

I find this discussion interesting in light of the "moral decline" thread we've been discussing. Empathy is the highest form of moral development, and yet there are folks on here who can not agree on what morality is and believe that "right and wrong" are learned only through actions and consequences. If there are no consequences; why help?

You cannot legislate morality; but thankfully there are a few good people who have had caring adults to teach it to them.

Don't be glib. People have been disagreeing on the definition of morality and obscenity since the notions existed.

Outside of a few basic principles that everyone agrees on, there is no "decline in moral values". There is only a bunch of diagruntled "moralists" that are peeved that they don't get to dictate their moral codes onto others.

Morals are a personal code that someone lives under. That's why, when talking about societies, the only relevant issue is the law which is a codification of moral values that person can be held accountable for breaching.

I'll give you an example: adultery is not a crime under common law. If anyone suggested that it become an illegal act, they would be mocked. However, adultery is a crime under the UCMJ and you can be prosecuted for it. When you join the military, you agree to abide by the UCMJ and subject yourself to possible criminal sanctions for acts that are illegal based on the "morals" of a different group of people.

Another example: It's not illegal to have THC in your system under common law. Possession of Marijuania is. However, under the UCMJ it's illegal to have THC in your system.

Whether adultery is a crime under the common law depends on what era common law you refer to. At one time all 50 states had "heart balm statutes" to punish adulterers....sometimes with criminal sanctions. They also punished bad finaces who dumped their girlfriends before the wedding. These are largely viewed as antique statues that remain on the books only because legislators lack the stiffening power to repeal them, but there have been law suits and even arrests on these grounds within recent memory.

Woman Arrested For Adultery Dating tips, relationship advice | DateDaily.com

Is Fantasia Being Sued for Adultery?

 

[geauxtohell]

Careful, things are changing. What once was may not be now. All it will take is one challenge to what ever state you are in's law. There is precedent now

In the state of California.

Also, they court ruled the GSL didn't apply here because the person wasn't administering medical aid.

Interpreting that law, the California Supreme Court held that the state’s Good Samaritan law only protects you from being sued if you render medical care at the scene of an emergency. If on the other hand you are just rendering aid or help in a non-medical way, such as pulling someone out of a burning car, you can now be sued. That doesn’t mean you will be found liable. That’s for a judge or jury to decide. But the fact that you can be sued, means that without insurance to protect you, you will undoubtedly need an attorney or lawyer to represent you, you will need to pay that lawyer his or her attorney’s fees and costs to defend you, which in a typical personal injury case can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

I think it's a silly ruling. However, it's a far cry from saying the GSL is now non-existent.

 

[geauxtohell]

In NJ, the avg. Joe can assist in an emergency, but a professional healthcare worker, like a nurse or doctor, is subject to a lawsuit. How effed up is that? Thank the lawyers.

Do you have examples of this?

I find this discussion interesting in light of the "moral decline" thread we've been discussing. Empathy is the highest form of moral development, and yet there are folks on here who can not agree on what morality is and believe that "right and wrong" are learned only through actions and consequences. If there are no consequences; why help?

You cannot legislate morality; but thankfully there are a few good people who have had caring adults to teach it to them.

Don't be glib. People have been disagreeing on the definition of morality and obscenity since the notions existed.

Outside of a few basic principles that everyone agrees on, there is no "decline in moral values". There is only a bunch of diagruntled "moralists" that are peeved that they don't get to dictate their moral codes onto others.

Morals are a personal code that someone lives under. That's why, when talking about societies, the only relevant issue is the law which is a codification of moral values that person can be held accountable for breaching.

I'll give you an example: adultery is not a crime under common law. If anyone suggested that it become an illegal act, they would be mocked. However, adultery is a crime under the UCMJ and you can be prosecuted for it. When you join the military, you agree to abide by the UCMJ and subject yourself to possible criminal sanctions for acts that are illegal based on the "morals" of a different group of people.

Another example: It's not illegal to have THC in your system under common law. Possession of Marijuania is. However, under the UCMJ it's illegal to have THC in your system.

Whether adultery is a crime under the common law depends on what era common law you refer to. At one time all 50 states had "heart balm statutes" to punish adulterers....sometimes with criminal sanctions. They also punished bad finaces who dumped their girlfriends before the wedding. These are largely viewed as antique statues that remain on the books only because legislators lack the stiffening power to repeal them, but there have been law suits and even arrests on these grounds within recent memory.

Woman Arrested For Adultery Dating tips, relationship advice | DateDaily.com

Is Fantasia Being Sued for Adultery?

I am talking about the here an now. Until recently, sex that wasn't in the missionary position was illegal in Texas. It just took a challenge to get it over turned.

Under the UCMJ people can and are (although rarely) prosecuted for adultery and they are certainly punished for having THC in their system.

 

[syrenn]

I love it when no one whats to hear a different world view other then their own.

I love it when someone makes a statement on a message board and then gets all pissed when they are challenged on it.

Until now, you've failed to provide a single instance to support your claims.
Basically, you've stomped your feet and insisted that you are right.

Now show me where I get all pisses or stomped my feet please? Please read every post to see who is a pissy foot stomper. Or did I let people have their say of what they though and then provided them evidence that they are mistaken in thinking they are safe?

 

[xotoxi]

Are you a Good Samaritan? Are you willing to help your fellow man out in a bad situation?

You know, pulling someone from a burning car. Performing CPR after someone has a heart attack. Doing mouth to mouth on a drowning person. Someone has fallen and you help them up. Someone is choking and you do the hymlic manover. You know that kind of thing, just being a nice person helping someone out.

In doing that are you willing to give up everything you have? Loose your home and all of your savings?

Be careful about this false security many you have about the Good Samaritan Law. There is no such thing.

Next time you come across one of your fellow man in trouble, think twice before helping. Unless that is you get it in writing that they want your help and absolve you of any liability.

So bottom line is don’t help anyone unless you are willing to accept the possibility to lose your shirt in the process.

There are a number of states that have good samaritan laws which protect the good samaritan from civil liability in the event they inadvertantly injure someone while trying to help them. There are a number of states that do not.

California's good samaritan law protects good samaritans who are "rendering emergency aid" to a victim of an accident. The California Supremes recently interpreted that phrase as meaning that only good samaritans who are rendering emergency MEDICAL aid will be protected by the law. That means a GS who injures a victim while pulling them out of a burning car, CAN be sued by the victim. (Thank you, Syrenn, for providing this information to me originally.)

I would say you should be aware of what the law is in your state on this particular issue and be guided accordingly. Of course, I don't know about you or anyone else, but I doubt there are few of us out there who wouldn't try to help another person if we could.

Find me a jury who would award even a penny to someone who was injured when a passerby pulled them out of a burning car, and I will find you a unicorn.

 

[syrenn]

Come to california, we have lots of unicorns. Trust me suing people is becoming a way of living.

 

[geauxtohell]

I love it when no one whats to hear a different world view other then their own.

I love it when someone makes a statement on a message board and then gets all pissed when they are challenged on it.

Until now, you've failed to provide a single instance to support your claims.
Basically, you've stomped your feet and insisted that you are right.

Now show me where I get all pisses or stomped my feet please? Please read every post to see who is a pissy foot stomper. Or did I let people have their say of what they though and then provided them evidence that they are mistaken in thinking they are safe?

You see, the common thing to do is to provide the evidence first so people can see where you are coming from. Not to worry, you've got an attractive woman as your avatar pic, so you have a bright future here. You've got it figured out.

So, as I understand your point, you think there is no such thing as the GSL because the court made a ruling that wasn't to your agreement?

In fact, you specifically stated that there was no such thing as a GSL. That's a curious statement since the Supreme Court of California made a ruling that defined the GSL. Specifically, this ruling was that this specific act did not fall under the GSL since the person was not applying medical aid.

I think it's a bum ruling too, but it doesn't obliterate the GSL. It defines it. That's what the courts do.

In this instance, the damage was committed by a non-health care provider who likely paralyzed someone when they removed them from a wreck. They weren't a health care provider and they didn't apply any medical assistance. None was needed because the person pulled them out of the car with the belief that the car was going to explode and not that the person needed medical assistance.

In that light, you are being slightly histrionic about the matter. If a nurse happens upon a wreck, uses her training to assess that the person is in immediate distress, and applies CPR it would be an entirely different matter.

 

[geauxtohell]

Come to california, we have lots of unicorns. Trust me suing people is becoming a way of living.

Is this going to turn into a lawyer/litigation bash-a-thon?

Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one.

 

[syrenn]

So, as I understand your point, you think there is no such thing as the GSL because the court made a ruling that wasn't to your agreement?

No what I am saying is that you can be as much as a GL as you want, just know that it does not provide you with any protection under the law.

n fact, you specifically stated that there was no such thing as a GSL. That's a curious statement since the Supreme Court of California made a ruling that defined the GSL. Specifically, this ruling was that this specific act did not fall under the GSL since the person was not applying medical aid.

The GSL of old more or less protects you for "causing harm" if you were acting in any situation which which required immoderate need. IE: choking, drowning, the car is on fire and someone is trapped. In these instances you do not specifically have to have medical training to act.

I think it's a bum ruling too, but it doesn't obliterate the GSL. It defines it. That's what the courts do.

Yes it does define it. It says to use an abundance of caution or you may be sued for your actions.

In this instance, the damage was committed by a non-health care provider who likely paralyzed someone when they removed them from a wreck. They weren't a health care provider and they didn't apply any medical assistance. None was needed because the person pulled them out of the car with the belief that the car was going to explode and not that the person needed medical assistance.

So for instance. Someone is caught in a burning car, the only way to get them out is to yank on their arm. In doing that you dislocate their arm and you also failed to notice they had a broken neck and needed brace before you moved them.

What do you do? Watch them burn to death and wait for trained medical aid. Or do you save their sorry ass and have them sue you later for a broken arm and paralysis?

In that light, you are being slightly histrionic about the matter. If a nurse happens upon a wreck, uses her training to assess that the person is in immediate distress, and applies CPR it would be an entirely different matter.

So then the only people you are saying are covered are the professional health care workers?

What happens when there is no professional their, its just jo shmo their to save your ass, what then?

 

[geauxtohell]

No what I am saying is that you can be as much as a GL as you want, just know that it does not provide you with any protection under the law.

You specifically said the GSL doesn't exist. Here, I'll remind you:

Be careful about this false security many you have about the Good Samaritan Law. There is no such thing.

A bit of hyperbole on your part. It would be like saying there is no such thing as a law against murder because O.J. was found innocent.

We have a court system where there is a winner and a loser. Don't you think it's a little silly to assume that every call is going to go the way you want it to go? Prior to this, how many lives had been saved in California under the GSL? How many of those people tried to sue due to some harm that occurred and lost because the actions taken by the Samaritan were found to be within the law?

Of course, since that is not sensational, it's never an issue.

The GSL of old more or less protects you for "causing harm" if you were acting in any situation which which required immoderate need. IE: choking, drowning, the car is on fire and someone is trapped. In these instances you do not specifically have to have medical training to act.

And the issue with this case was that the act that was performed wasn't one that applied medical assistance to someone. Which is how the law was written. So, perhaps the state legislature screwed the pooch on the matter when they wrote it and made the scope too narrow. The court is only interpreting what they wrote.

I'll lay money down that the law is amended soon. Though I think that some protection needs to be in place for people who clearly aren't in immediate danger. I mean, there is a reason we have trained first responders for these matters.

Yes it does define it. It says to use an abundance of caution or you may be sued for your actions.

That's not quite what the court said.

So for instance. Someone is caught in a burning car, the only way to get them out is to yank on their arm. In doing that you dislocate their arm and you also failed to notice they had a broken neck and needed brace before you moved them.

What do you do? Watch them burn to death and wait for trained medical aid. Or do you save their sorry ass and have them sue you later for a broken arm and paralysis?[/COLOR]

Like I said, for this exact scenario (which wasn't the exact scenario in the case) I think it's a bum ruling. I would expect the state to rectify the matter. If they don't and people who would have otherwise been saved get BBQ'd, then it's a shame.

So then the only people you are saying are covered are the professional health care workers?

No, that's just how I learned it (and the basics of the matter that I learned were generalities for the entire nation, not the state of California).

Here is the statute for your state:

1799.102. 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.

So, apparently it covers anybody. The issue the justices had is that, in this instance, the act of moving someone was not "medical care". The stupidity behind the justices wording is almost comical:

From the decision, written by Justice H. Walter Croskey:

"There may be circumstances in which moving someone from their current location is a matter of medical exigency, such as where a carbon monoxide poisoning victim needs to be moved to a source of fresh air. We do not hold that the act of moving a person is never the rendition of emergency medical care, only that it was not in this case."

So, use your discretion on moving someone. It does seem that the GS in this instance over reacted.

What happens when there is no professional their, its just jo shmo their to save your ass, what then?

Death. Also, don't mis-represent my statements. I think this was a shitty ruling. However, it's extreme to say it obliterates the GSL.

 

[The T]

Are you a Good Samaritan? Are you willing to help your fellow man out in a bad situation?

You know, pulling someone from a burning car. Performing CPR after someone has a heart attack. Doing mouth to mouth on a drowning person. Someone has fallen and you help them up. Someone is choking and you do the hymlic manover. You know that kind of thing, just being a nice person helping someone out.

In doing that are you willing to give up everything you have? Loose your home and all of your savings?

Be careful about this false security many you have about the Good Samaritan Law. There is no such thing.

Next time you come across one of your fellow man in trouble, think twice before helping. Unless that is you get it in writing that they want your help and absolve you of any liability.

So bottom line is don’t help anyone unless you are willing to accept the possibility to lose your shirt in the process.

Point Taken...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiP3cfoiL_s"]YouTube - seinfeld scene - Good-Samaritan-Law.avi[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Now where did I say don't help people? I said know the possible consequences of your actions.

Stop warning about potential dangers. Jesus, you think you're doing people a favor by expressing your fears?

STFU

Not a fear, a fact of law.

Here's another for ya counselor