|Reading it wrong|
Posted by Ken Kurtis on December 23, 2008 at 12:50:09:|
In Reply to: Loss of Protection from Good Samaritan Act posted by Walt on December 22, 2008 at 17:32:51:
I don't think your interpretation of the Court's ruling is correct.
What the Court indicated is that the Good Samaritan Law covers you when you are providing MEDICAL assistance, like CPR, first aid, etc. (Although a doctor might be covered for acts under the GS Law, he/she will be held to a higher standard than a lay person.)
The Court said the GS Law does not apply ONLY when the assistance being given is not medical. In this particular case (and there are many who disagree with how the Court ruled), the Court said that pulling smeone from the car is NOT medical assistance and therefore protection from liability is not provided by the Good Samaritan Law.
In the case in question, the victim was "yanked" from the car by the rescuer and ended up paralyzed. What will have to be proven in court will be whether or not the yanking caused the paralysis or whether the accident caused it.
But, as Don pointed out, "Do no harm" should be the first rule of thumb in any scenario and in this case, harm may have been done and the Court says you're not insulated from liability.
|Optional Link URL:|
|Optional Link Title:|
|Optional Image URL:|
|Post Background Color:||White Black|
|Post Area Page Width:||Normal Full|
|You must type in the
scrambled text key to
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.