Good Deed Goes Punished

Damn shame

Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection)

and her friend blames her

I mean I probably wouldn't be happy with life if I ended up a para.. but jesus

It sucks, but the decision sounds fair. If Californians want to protect good samaritans who act negligently in coming to the aid of others, the California Legislature should amend the legislation to do so.

It sucks, but the decision sounds fair. If Californians want to protect good samaritans who act negligently in coming to the aid of others, the California Legislature should amend the legislation to do so.
are you kidding me? what happens if the car blows up, and she doesn't save her? she gets sued for not helping? w.t.f is wrong with our judicial system?

are you kidding me? what happens if the car blows up, and she doesn't save her? she gets sued for not helping? w.t.f is wrong with our judicial system?

The legislative branch of federal and state governments draft and adopt laws. Those laws reflect policy decisions of legislators elected by the people. Judges swear to uphold all of those laws, regardless of whether they "like" them from a policy standpoint. Good judges are able to set aside their personal preferences and enforce the will of the people as reflected in the law.

Here, the California legislature passed a law which only granted immunity from first responders providing medical assistance. The court determined that the friend did not qualify for immunity under the law which was passed by the state legislature. As a result, the friend will be liable for money damages if a jury determines (1) that the friend was negligent and (2) the friend deserves to pay for that negligence.

So, your problem isn't with the court's decision, it is with the narrowness of the immunity granted by the legislature for good samaritans. If you have a problem with the decision, take it up with a California state legislator. Alternatively, you can become an anarchist and hope that we get rid of those pesky "laws" which dictate the outcome of cases.

More often than not, criticisms of the justice system are totally unfounded. The criticisms usually amount to attacks on policy choices reflected in laws. Since laws are passed by the people through their representatives in legislatures, criticisms of the justice system usually amount to, "We the people hate laws that we the people helped pass. But, because we hate lawyers, we blame the judges for enforcing the laws we passed."

The legislative branch of federal and state governments draft and adopt laws. Those laws reflect policy decisions of legislators elected by the people. Judges swear to uphold all of those laws, regardless of whether they "like" them from a policy standpoint. Good judges are able to set aside their personal preferences and enforce the will of the people as reflected in the law.

Here, the California legislature passed a law which only granted immunity from first responders providing medical assistance. The court determined that the friend did not qualify for immunity under the law which was passed by the state legislature. As a result, the friend will be liable for money damages if a jury determines (1) that the friend was negligent and (2) the friend deserves to pay for that negligence.

So, your problem isn't with the court's decision, it is with the narrowness of the immunity granted by the legislature for good samaritans. If you have a problem with the decision, take it up with a California state legislator. Alternatively, you can become an anarchist and hope that we get rid of those pesky "laws" which dictate the outcome of cases.

More often than not, criticisms of the justice system are totally unfounded. The criticisms usually amount to attacks on policy choices reflected in laws. Since laws are passed by the people through their representatives in legislatures, criticisms of the justice system usually amount to, "We the people hate laws that we the people helped pass. But, because we hate lawyers, we blame the judges for enforcing the laws we passed."


I generally agree with you, but this case exemplifies why somebody back in England a long time ago started using the word "however". As in, the law states such and such, however...

I generally agree with you, but this case exemplifies why somebody back in England a long time ago started using the word "however". As in, the law states such and such, however...

I'm not quite sure I follow. Do you mean that the judges should have "legislated from the bench" and expanded the scope of the immunity beyond that provided for in the law? Or, do you mean, that the legislators passed a dumb law?

A truly F'd up situation

The issue here is with the scumbag plaintiff, not with the court's ruling. You can't legislate decency.

A truly F'd up situation
I agree but this only say's that they can sue and have it go to court.