S3v3N wrote:
HollisHurlbut wrote:
Unfortunately, I can't find the text of California's Good Samaritan statute to compare it with my own state's version, due to the flood of stories about this ruling. I know my own state's law not only immunizes you from liability but also obligates you to take action commensurate with your ability to do so. (For example, a wheelchair-bound driver who witnesses a severe auto accident must only call for help, but a capable paramedic who witnessees the same accident must use his training to help. If he simply called an ambulance like the wheelie, he'd be criminally liable. However, if the wheelie wheeled on over to the scene and performed an emergency tracheotomy with a Bic pen, he wouldn't be covered because he's operating outside the bounds of his own ability to provide competent care.) If California's statute is similarly worded, this ruling puts anyone in California into a trick bag where they have to walk the thin line between criminal liability for not helping or civil liability for not doing everything just right when they do help.
Montana has the same laws.
However, I am trained in rapid extrication as most other EMTs and Firefighters.. Basicly All you do is put a C-Collar on and pull them the fuck out.
and yes I do have a "jump" kit in my truck since I'm certified by the state of Montana to practice emergency medicine.
The problem is that many people are
not trained, and many people in the public see the 'smoke' from the airbag deployment, and think that the car is on fire, and (thanks to holleywood) is about to explode.
I am an EMT as well, and by Texas law, if I am on duty as an EMT, I am required to stop and render aid within my scope of care. As long as I act within my scope of care, I am protected from lawsuit. I do not agree with this law, even though untrained passerbys may have the potential to cause more harm, it is just as likely that they will be able to provide SOME level of care much, much faster than emergency responders can get on scene. Sometimes, that time matters. Besides, I do not like the idea where someone has to stop to consider the possibility of a lawsuit before they try to help somoene.
What is next? Will you force the victim to sign a waver to their right to sue for unintended concequences prior to ayone trying to render aid or assistance? Should se start wearing "Save Me!" bracelets?