Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Time: The Perils of Being a Good Samaritan in California

Time: The Perils of Being a Good Samaritan in California

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
htmlcom
12 Posts 2 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • I Offline
    I Offline
    Ilion
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Time: The Perils of Being a Good Samaritan in California[^] -- OR: The Perils (and Tyrany) of Letting Judges Make Law

    L 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • I Ilion

      Time: The Perils of Being a Good Samaritan in California[^] -- OR: The Perils (and Tyrany) of Letting Judges Make Law

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Lost User
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Interesting that they say (a) "person has no duty to come to the aid of another. " I seem to rememeber in the UK that you could b prosecuted or sued for not helping someone in need! Mind you - I remember once stopping to help a young chap having an epileptic fit on the pavement (sidewalk) - he was rolling around a bit, frothing at the mouth, but breathing fine - so I just kept an eye on him. Some git (who hadn't bothered doing anything until someone else stopped to help) then butted in, insisting on putting him in the recovery position and talking about CPR! There's a situation where the kid could have been hurt by moving him, completely unnecessarily...

      If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

      I 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • L Lost User

        Interesting that they say (a) "person has no duty to come to the aid of another. " I seem to rememeber in the UK that you could b prosecuted or sued for not helping someone in need! Mind you - I remember once stopping to help a young chap having an epileptic fit on the pavement (sidewalk) - he was rolling around a bit, frothing at the mouth, but breathing fine - so I just kept an eye on him. Some git (who hadn't bothered doing anything until someone else stopped to help) then butted in, insisting on putting him in the recovery position and talking about CPR! There's a situation where the kid could have been hurt by moving him, completely unnecessarily...

        If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

        I Offline
        I Offline
        Ilion
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Maxxx_ wrote:

        Interesting that they say (a) "person has no duty to come to the aid of another. "

        This page says that there is (generally) no legal duty: An Argument Against a Legal Duty to Rescue[^]

        1. People with little close acquaintance with the law are sometimes surprised to learn that there is at common law, and in most statutory jurisdictions in the English-speaking world, no general duty to render aid to individuals who are in trouble. ...

        Maxxx_ wrote:

        I seem to rememeber in the UK that you could b prosecuted or sued for not helping someone in need!

        I don't doubt that it could happen here, too, despite that there is apparently no legal requirement that one do so.

        Maxxx_ wrote:

        Mind you - ... Some git (who hadn't bothered doing anything until someone else stopped to help) then butted in ... There's a situation where the kid could have been hurt by moving him, completely unnecessarily...

        I wouldn't expect a Good Samaritan law to give someone carte blanche in the aid (or "aid") he administers. In a case like this, the situation is in hand. In the case in the Time article, the situation sounds differently.

        modified on Friday, January 16, 2009 12:50 AM

        L 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • I Ilion

          Maxxx_ wrote:

          Interesting that they say (a) "person has no duty to come to the aid of another. "

          This page says that there is (generally) no legal duty: An Argument Against a Legal Duty to Rescue[^]

          1. People with little close acquaintance with the law are sometimes surprised to learn that there is at common law, and in most statutory jurisdictions in the English-speaking world, no general duty to render aid to individuals who are in trouble. ...

          Maxxx_ wrote:

          I seem to rememeber in the UK that you could b prosecuted or sued for not helping someone in need!

          I don't doubt that it could happen here, too, despite that there is apparently no legal requirement that one do so.

          Maxxx_ wrote:

          Mind you - ... Some git (who hadn't bothered doing anything until someone else stopped to help) then butted in ... There's a situation where the kid could have been hurt by moving him, completely unnecessarily...

          I wouldn't expect a Good Samaritan law to give someone carte blanche in the aid (or "aid") he administers. In a case like this, the situation is in hand. In the case in the Time article, the situation sounds differently.

          modified on Friday, January 16, 2009 12:50 AM

          L Offline
          L Offline
          Lost User
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Yep - I think the UK has no requirement to help (unless you are the cause of the need for aid), but some other European countries do. "In the United Kingdom, there is generally no legal obligation on an individual to assist a person in need of resuscitation provided he was not the cause of the casualty requiring treatment. In other words, there is generally no legal liability for a mere omission to act. This is different from the situation in many other European countries where the law does in certain circumstances impose a duty to help others." from The UK Resuscitation Council[^] That kinda surprised me - but I guess that's why the law can be an ass -

          If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

          I 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • L Lost User

            Yep - I think the UK has no requirement to help (unless you are the cause of the need for aid), but some other European countries do. "In the United Kingdom, there is generally no legal obligation on an individual to assist a person in need of resuscitation provided he was not the cause of the casualty requiring treatment. In other words, there is generally no legal liability for a mere omission to act. This is different from the situation in many other European countries where the law does in certain circumstances impose a duty to help others." from The UK Resuscitation Council[^] That kinda surprised me - but I guess that's why the law can be an ass -

            If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

            I Offline
            I Offline
            Ilion
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            Maxxx_ wrote:

            That kinda surprised me - but I guess that's why the law can be an ass -

            But on the other hand, might it not be better to leave it as a moral, but not a legal, requirement? I'm thinking that the git you mentioned might well have attempted to botch the situation sooner had there been a legal requirement to offer aid/rescue.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • I Ilion

              Time: The Perils of Being a Good Samaritan in California[^] -- OR: The Perils (and Tyrany) of Letting Judges Make Law

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Ilíon wrote:

              The Perils (and Tyrany) of Letting Judges Make Law

              Judges interpret the law. Legislation should be unambiguous.

              Bob Emmett

              I 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                Ilíon wrote:

                The Perils (and Tyrany) of Letting Judges Make Law

                Judges interpret the law. Legislation should be unambiguous.

                Bob Emmett

                I Offline
                I Offline
                Ilion
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Bob Emmett wrote:

                Judges interpret the law.

                Do they now? And yet, even they are forever talking about "making law."

                Bob Emmett wrote:

                Legislation should be unambiguous.

                Have I said otherwise? Is this really ambiguous?

                ... Those laws were set in place in 1980, when the state legislature enacted Health and Safety Code 1799.102, which provides that "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." ...

                Or is this "ambiguous" after lawyers and judges have made it so?

                ... However, in its sharply divided 4-3 ruling, the high court held that the state statute immunizing rescuers from liability applies only if the individual is providing medical care in an emergency situation, citing the statute's placement in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services. Torti, who is not a health-care worker, believed she was acting as a concerned friend. ...

                L 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • I Ilion

                  Bob Emmett wrote:

                  Judges interpret the law.

                  Do they now? And yet, even they are forever talking about "making law."

                  Bob Emmett wrote:

                  Legislation should be unambiguous.

                  Have I said otherwise? Is this really ambiguous?

                  ... Those laws were set in place in 1980, when the state legislature enacted Health and Safety Code 1799.102, which provides that "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." ...

                  Or is this "ambiguous" after lawyers and judges have made it so?

                  ... However, in its sharply divided 4-3 ruling, the high court held that the state statute immunizing rescuers from liability applies only if the individual is providing medical care in an emergency situation, citing the statute's placement in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services. Torti, who is not a health-care worker, believed she was acting as a concerned friend. ...

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  Lost User
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  Ilíon wrote:

                  And yet, even they are forever talking about "making law."

                  Are they now? Please provide links.

                  Ilíon wrote:

                  Is this really ambiguous?

                  To me, no. It is in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services and clearly states renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency. Yanking an injured person from their car is not rendering emergency care, even if you believe it is. To a lawyer, yes. Is there a definition of what constitutes emergency care? Apparently not. Great, a barrow-load of fees! The Good Samaritan would have nothing to fear from the judges' ruling.

                  Bob Emmett

                  I 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • L Lost User

                    Ilíon wrote:

                    And yet, even they are forever talking about "making law."

                    Are they now? Please provide links.

                    Ilíon wrote:

                    Is this really ambiguous?

                    To me, no. It is in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services and clearly states renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency. Yanking an injured person from their car is not rendering emergency care, even if you believe it is. To a lawyer, yes. Is there a definition of what constitutes emergency care? Apparently not. Great, a barrow-load of fees! The Good Samaritan would have nothing to fear from the judges' ruling.

                    Bob Emmett

                    I Offline
                    I Offline
                    Ilion
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    Bob Emmett wrote:

                    Please provide links.

                    We both know that you have no interest at all in knowing what is what on the matter. And I am not at the beck and call of a mindset such as yours.

                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      Ilíon wrote:

                      And yet, even they are forever talking about "making law."

                      Are they now? Please provide links.

                      Ilíon wrote:

                      Is this really ambiguous?

                      To me, no. It is in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services and clearly states renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency. Yanking an injured person from their car is not rendering emergency care, even if you believe it is. To a lawyer, yes. Is there a definition of what constitutes emergency care? Apparently not. Great, a barrow-load of fees! The Good Samaritan would have nothing to fear from the judges' ruling.

                      Bob Emmett

                      I Offline
                      I Offline
                      Ilion
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #10

                      Bob Emmett wrote:

                      To me, no. It is in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services and clearly states renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency. Yanking an injured person from their car is not rendering emergency care, even if you believe it is.

                      And yet three of the seven justices are unconvinced that the ruling is correct. Oddly enough ... I mean, if we're going to be talking about laws needing to be unambiguous ... this is the same court which recently discovered that California's Constitution contains a provision mandating same-sex "marriage," despite that until recently no one had even *imagined* that it did. This is also the same court which is now trying to figure out how to declare California's Constitution null and void without putting themselves out of power.

                      L 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • I Ilion

                        Bob Emmett wrote:

                        Please provide links.

                        We both know that you have no interest at all in knowing what is what on the matter. And I am not at the beck and call of a mindset such as yours.

                        L Offline
                        L Offline
                        Lost User
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #11

                        Ilíon wrote:

                        We both know that you have no interest at all in knowing what is what on the matter.

                        But I do have an interest.

                        Ilíon wrote:

                        And I am not at the beck and call of a mindset such as yours.

                        You are not at my beck and call, certainly. I would challenge you on your knowledge of my mindset, but you are not at my b&c; so I shall just have to doubt that knowledge.

                        Bob Emmett

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • I Ilion

                          Bob Emmett wrote:

                          To me, no. It is in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services and clearly states renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency. Yanking an injured person from their car is not rendering emergency care, even if you believe it is.

                          And yet three of the seven justices are unconvinced that the ruling is correct. Oddly enough ... I mean, if we're going to be talking about laws needing to be unambiguous ... this is the same court which recently discovered that California's Constitution contains a provision mandating same-sex "marriage," despite that until recently no one had even *imagined* that it did. This is also the same court which is now trying to figure out how to declare California's Constitution null and void without putting themselves out of power.

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          Lost User
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #12

                          Ilíon wrote:

                          And yet three of the seven justices are unconvinced that the ruling is correct.

                          As I said: To a lawyer, yes. Is there a definition of what constitutes emergency care? Apparently not.

                          Ilíon wrote:

                          California's Constitution contains a provision mandating same-sex "marriage

                          Well, I know nothing of this, other than snippets on the news. I understood that a law had been passed authorizing same-sex marriages, that it had been upheld as Constitutional, and that the Constitution had then been amended to redefine marriage as being between opposite-sex couples. Seems like power is in the hands of the people in the USA, if they try hard enough. Great, restores your faith in democracy.

                          Ilíon wrote:

                          figure out how to declare California's Constitution null and void without putting themselves out of power

                          Why would the Constitution have to be declared null and void?

                          Bob Emmett

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Don't have an account? Register

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups