Don't You Dare Help Me Or I Will Sue!

You have got to be kidding me. Where else but the smiling, sunny, warm and welcoming state of California, could something so incredibly stupid as this occur. Come to think of it, it really doesn't surprise me any more when I read about stuff like this. Especially here in California. You can bet, if something stupid is under way, it's got to be happening in California. The term of endearment description, of California being the 'Land of Fruits and Nuts' rings true on a daily basis it would appear.

We seem to have an over abundance of the mentally criminal out here on the West coast, as felony-stupidity is running rampant as of late.

But here's the deal on our latest blast of numptiness. In California, a good Samaritan can now be SUED, for rendering any assistance other than strictly medical aid. Case in point; a woman was aiding a coworker out of a wrecked vehicle after a Halloween party traffic accident. The supposed 'rag-doll' like removal of the accident victim is being blamed for the damage to the victims spine, now rendering her a paraplegic. Not that it wasn't completely possible that this injury had already been received from the car wreck itself. None the less, the 'rescuer' in this case, can be sued according to the California Supreme Court.

I'll give ya a couple blasts from the LATimes article on this: The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

At least a few of the judges had some sense about them; But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help. The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."

And of course, we have the standardized lawyer/professor input here; Both opinions have merit, "but I think the majority has better arguments," said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and bioethics law at USC. Shapiro said the majority was correct in interpreting that the Legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with "reasonable care," as the law requires. Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court's message was that emergency care "should be left to medical professionals."

I'd like to know where people like this live, so I can sit on their street corner, watch them get into a car wreck while texting away, so I can walk over to them and say, "I'd love to help you get out of the car before it explodes but, well, no, I really don't want to help," and just walk away and let them die. Cruel? Perhaps. But how much more vile was it for them to make this decision in the first place?

I foresee a lot of people being left for dead on the side of the road now.