California legislature considers change to Good Samaritan law

A front-page story in today's Sacramento Bee reports on efforts in the state's General Assembly to reverse a recent decision of the California Supreme Court regarding the so-called Good Samaritan doctrine. In that case, the Court ruled 4-3 that a plaintiff's suit could proceed because the rescue did not involve emergency medical care. Alexandra Van Horn brought that suit against Lisa Torti after Torti pulled Van Horn, an acquaintance of hers, from a vehicle that had crashed into a light pole. Van Horn suffered serious injuries, including paralysis.

Read Jim Sanders' Bee story here. A short excerpt follows:

The high court found that lawmakers intended the good Samaritan law, passed three decades ago, to apply only to emergency medical care.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, noted that the good Samaritan law is part of a Health and Safety Code targeting medical services and care.

Torti does not contend that she rendered emergency medical care, the ruling said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said it is illogical that Torti would be shielded for tending wounds but not for bravery in pulling a friend from wreckage.

"There is no reason why one kind of lay volunteer aid should be immune, while another is not," Baxter wrote.

In the majority's view, Baxter wrote, a swimmer could be sued for injuries caused rescuing a comrade from swirling waters but not for harm caused in trying to revive the victim on shore.

Now the California legislature is considering two bills, one in the Assembly and one in the Senate, that would "expand the good Samaritan law to cover non-medical aid."