So true, but try and get a physician to open his checkbook when he negligently injures someone to pay for their future care, lost wages, etc. Heck, try and get them to simply apologize.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. As physicians we have an opportunity to try and help them in such instances. Meanshile, attorneys are like sharks smelling blood, seeking personal gain in such circumstances no matter the absurdity of the situation….

Tort reform should be nationwide.

The decision had nothing to do with her being drunk. That is something that is a different topic. There is reason to limit her immunity, according to the minority opinion. The minority justices just did not see any reason to rewrite the law.

The decision that is a problem is that the law was written clearly. As Symtym states, there is no common law exemption for Good Samaritans. That appears to be the reason California created this exemption. The purpose of the law is to encourage people to help their neighbors, without a fear of the legal consequences. The interpretation of the majority is an illogical application of Feng Shui to the law.

California will probably have a rewritten Good Samaritan law soon. It is unlikely that the state’s law makers will tolerate this rewriting of the law by the Supreme Court.

Really? How many? Which ones? You mean because drunks won’t render aid in non-emergency situations we’re all in more danger?

The following quotes from the article seem to make it clear. Anything that is not medical aid is not protected by the Good Samaritan law.

“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.”

Referring to the Good Samaritan law:

“Although that passage does not use the word “medical” in describing the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there, lawmakers intended to shield “only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency,” Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.”

“Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was “illogical” because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.”

It seem that the intent of the court is to state that assisting a neighbor in fighting fires is not protected. Assisting a neighbor in preventing a crime is not protected. Only medical aid is protected.