The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

The Plight of the Good Samaritan

172 Comments

January 27, 2009 by Kathy McManus

On Halloween night four years ago in Los Angeles, a car slammed into a light pole at 45 mph, critically injuring a young woman named Alexandra Van Horn, who is now a paraplegic.

Also shattered in the accident was the very definition of what it means to be a Good Samaritan, undermined by a troubling new legal question: Can you be sued for trying to save someone’s life?

Van Horn and several friends had just left a bar at 1:30AM when the driver of the car she was in lost control and crashed. Following behind in a second car was Van Horn’s friend Lisa Torti, who stopped and rushed to help. Torti said she saw smoke and feared that the wrecked car would catch fire or explode, so she pulled the incapacitated Van Horn from the passenger’s seat.

Van Horn later sued Torti, saying that her spinal injuries from the accident were made worse by Torti dragging her from the car “like a rag doll.” Torti argued that she was covered by California’s Good Samaritan law, which provides legal protection to people helping in an emergency. The case was dismissed.

But in a controversial new ruling, the California Supreme Court said the state’s Good Samaritan law applies only to emergency medical care. Rescuing someone from a car crash doesn’t qualify. Hence, the court said, Van Horn has the right to sue her Good Samaritan. And so she did.

“Careless rescuers are not good Samaritans, really,” said a law professor after the court’s ruling. “We don’t want people interfering with other people and hurting them a lot worse, right?”

California legislators immediately proposed three separate bills to amend the law, but many future Samaritans had already downgraded themselves from Good to Hesitant to Never. “The next time I see someone in need of help I will look the other way and mind my own business” was typical of the many postings on internet message boards.

“This is absolutely ridiculous,” wrote another. “I’m sure that if she hadn’t pulled the woman from the wreckage and the car had exploded, she’d be charged with letting the woman die.”

From parable to terrible, the Good Samaritan’s drop in stock may have been summed up best by a newspaper columnist who wrote, “As for that New Testament passage, in which the Samaritan comes across a man who had been robbed, beaten and left for dead, ‘and bound up his wounds…and took care of him’—it’d be a shame to have to put an asterisk there, with the notation, ‘Not applicable in California.’”

Tell us what you think: Would you still help someone in an emergency, knowing you could be sued? Where would you draw the line between helping and turning away?

172 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• January 29, 2009 by Vix

  So if you are in need of help, those who could help won't because you might sue them. If the friend acted in her best interest where is the negligence? Can you be sued if you are not negligent? What about the rest of the people; why not sue them for not helping?

  Reply

  • February 12, 2009 by nathan Johnson

    I think it was Johnny Cash who wrote a song about; name your boy any name ,but don't name him Sue." This is what this world has come to, a "materialistic society". Everybody wants money without work. Just go out and look for ways to sue somebody, is the agenda for too many people. When we become enslaved with the works of the fles, Galatians 5: 19-21,we allow the materialistic culture to dictate to us. Yes, by God's grace I will continue to help in light of the possibility of being sued. For instance, reports have been that many have witnessed a woman being raped and beaten and they only stood by and watched. Why didn't these watchers get sued for negligence? May Almighty God help us to come back to a moral conscience.

    Reply

    • December 12, 2011 by JDB

      Johnny Cash didn't write A BOY NAMED SUE,.

      Pretty sure it was Shell Silverstein

    • December 20, 2011 by Dennis

      Well, I witnessed a roll over accident in an intersection in Long Beach CA. Gasoline was chugging out of the fill pipe onto the ground and down the street. engine was smoking as were bystanders. Driver was laying unconscious on the roof on the passenger side as the car was upside down. I thought for a second about being stuck inside when it blew up... but the rushed in the open door and drug the body out and 20 feet away. I then ran back to my car and sped off. Saw the car burst into flames in my rear view mirror. Never went back...

      My solution!

    • December 21, 2011 by Megan

      Um, a Boy Named Sue is about a father giving a boy a girl's name to make him tough. It has nothing to do with suing anyone, or Shel Silverstein, or anything else related to this story.

    • December 24, 2011 by Boomer

      Would I help? It depends on the circumstances; in a case like this, it would depend on WHERE the car struck the pole. Head-on? Sideswipe? Rear-end? If the car was like most vehicles, if not all, the gas tank is probably in the rear and if the car hit the pole head-on, the likelihood of a major fire was fairly small. So, I probably wouldn't in this case.

      As to why bystanders aren't/couldn't be charged for not helping, that's because under our system in America, no one has a duty to assist another, barring some special relationship, such as a rescue worker or police officer, whose sworn duty is to assist another.

    • December 26, 2011 by Gabrielle

      A boy named sue was by Johnny cash.

    • December 31, 2011 by Emerald Robertson

      Trust a freaking lawyer to find yet another way for their sorry bums to make money. And this young lady that even TRIED to sue a person trying to save her life, Ma'am you should hide yourself in shame for the rest of your life!I have severe back injuries and have lived with it all my life. Pain wracking my body daily. I managed to get myself through college and raise three children, let alone even have them in the first place! I live in a wheel chair and there isn't a day that goes by that I don't hate it but I don't bit(* about it. I am sick to death of a small group of disabled persons who whine and are angry and take it out on the world and anything in it. Deal with it girlfriend. It is what it is! you need to concentrate on what you CAN do that might give you some pride and joy. We all go through a series of stages and you are allowed a certain adjustment period, but that will get old to those around you and you will even lose the friends you still have. Learn to DO for your self as much as possible and check out some of the technology available today. You could eve test new stuff and get to use some pretty good stuff free. Good luck on your stages and try to keep your head up.

  • December 8, 2011 by Rudolph Wratten

    There is a fine balance between acting, and acting correctly. The first thing that this good samaritan should do is get good advice, call 911 and ask for help, explaining the situation. I have seen burglaries in progress, and simply call the police. I have heard the cries of a woman screaming "Rape!", I call the police. If I saw a car wreck and had concerns over a sudden burst of flame, I would act with caution, remember that the number one person in this case is the rescuer, we do not need more people injured. Calling 911 should always be the first call.

    Reply

    • December 10, 2011 by ray

      I've called 911 and gotten a recording stating that "due to high call volume, we are unable to immediately answer your call" and telling me to "go to a place of safety" so what does one do in circumstances like that?

      The rescuer based his actions of the belief that a fire or explosion was imminent, and therefore should not be sued.

      As for as inaction is concerned, are we going to end up like the recent incident in China where a child was run over TWICE because bystanders were afraid to act because they were afraid of being sued or being charged with causing the child's injuries?

    • December 12, 2011 by Doug

      I have been a paramedic for 6 years. If someone is in a car and needs help getting out and the car is on fire get them out. Don't let them burn up while you are on the phone with 911. Use common sense. If they are not in immediate danger call 911 and wait for the EMS crews to get there.

    • December 17, 2011 by Josie

      For Rudolph Wratten-For the love of God, I hope you will feel that way if it was your son or daughter in a wrecked car that was smoking and they were trapped; then perhaps the person would think about you and call 911 (spending those precious few moments talking to somone one the phone when a loud explosion is heard and your child is burned to a crisp. Oh well, I did the fine and proper stupid thing and called 911. When are we going to learn to use the brain that God gave us? This woman should be a hero and the no good ungrateful clod (drunken one) should be ashamed of herself. As for you Rudolph, perhaps if we stop our Monday morning quarterbacking, and let morality take over, we would have a much better world.

    • December 28, 2011 by GC

      I have put out three car fires, two house fires, and stopped two people from killing someone, along with many other minor interventions. If I had called 911 instead of acting immediately, there would be two burned homes, three burnt cars, and one dead person. I agree to call 911 when possible, but to me the most important person is the person in need. Silly old me.

  • December 17, 2011 by Frank Guerrero

    I would still help, If I get sued for doing the right thing according to my heart then so be it. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip comes to play in my life. You don't need to call me a good samaritan just a happy,joyful kind of guy with divine appointments. Suffering in doing good is ok with me. This is a fallen world with fallen philosophies. So to encounter a time of need, or help is out of this world. JUST DO IT should be a good samaritans logo.

    Reply

• January 30, 2009 by

  Once you go down the path of suing for money, forever will it dominate your destiny. This kind of law worries me in so many ways. Such a suit is worse than frivolous, it is malignant - especially when made against a former friend. What I find especially concerning is that the lady who is suing had just left a bar. She put herself with that driver who lost control and crashed - she made that decision. How can she then be anything but grateful to her FRIEND who helped her? Next she'll be suing the bartender for giving them too many drinks...or not taking their keys and calling a cab!

  Reply

  • December 30, 2011 by MannyHM

    There's a rhyme in the first lines on money and destiny. A country song writer might be inspired by the connection, I wish I had the talent a song on this matter. Van Horn might be looking for a way to pay for those tremendous medical bills and lost income.

    Reply

• February 5, 2009 by Debbie

  My brother was in a freak motorcycle accident which left him paralyzed. There was a car which saw him go over a cliff and they stopped and ran down to assist. They carried him up to the road and called for help. Would he have been paralyzed if they would have left him there and gone for help - who is to know. They acted with good intentions and to this day I am grateful they stopped and helped.

  Reply

  • December 8, 2011 by Brandy

    I would help if I saw someone in trouble, with no regard to the thought of wether I'd be sued or not. My brother was also in a car accident, he was severly hurt and NOONE helped him, not even the driver of the car he was in!! The driver and the persons who were around, instead left him alone to die, they didn't try to help him, they didn't use the cell phone in their hands to call for help, they left him...he was found dead almost 11 hours later. My brother could have survived his injuries, had someone taken him to a hospital or called 911. I could never just walk by someone hurt or in need and not help. I think this woman should be thanking God for putting friends in her life who cared enough about her to offer help, not everyone has such people in their lives. God bless her friend for selflessly running to her aid rather than just running!!

    Reply

    • December 9, 2011 by Liane

      Brandy, I'm so sorry for your loss.

• February 7, 2009 by J

  When drinking, the designated driver is supposed to be sober. One wonders was the driver sober? If not, what was the accident victim doing in the car? Again, onus belongs to the free choice to climb into a car with a potentially impaired driver.

  Reply

• February 8, 2009 by David Hood

  As a grocery store manager, I was on my daily department walk through when I came upon a bakery employee who was choking. All the other employees on the scene were frozen and panicking themselves. I quickly assessed the situation and performed the Heimlich maneuver which on the second upward thrust she spit up a piece of danish that was lodged in her throat. Even though all the employees present had just under gone a first aid training course one week before, they were like deer caught in head lights. This past summer, my wife and I were at Glacier National Park relaxing on Lake McDonald when we saw a young girl out in deep water obviously having a hard time swimming. I made a decision to take the kayak out and see if she was OK. It is a good thing I did because as soon as I got near her she grabbed on to my kayak and held on. She kept saying that she was a good swimmer but she was exhausted. Her two cousins were in a small boat nearby but were playing with her and kept paddling away as she got closer. When I got the ten year old girl to shore everyone was very appreciative. The very next day we were on a hiking trail that had a long section that was a narrow ledge. An older man lost his hat from a gust of wind and proceeded to chase it over the ledge. His grand daughter and myself were nearest to him and helped him from going over and pulled him back up on the trail. Not once did I think about being sued from these three individuals or their families if the outcome had been different. While none of these stories involve a burning car, I probably would react and get involved as best I could. Sadly, we live in an extremely litigious society, and laws need to be written to stop frivolous law suits, but even if that does not happen, we still need to be involved and help when we see someone in distress. I am sure all three of the above mentioned individuals and families are just happy that someone was there to give aid.

  Reply

  • December 27, 2011 by Stoneman

    I was driving pretty slow with my truck pulling a trailer with my lights on and flashing because of fog early one morning and came to a low place and the fog was then over my vehicle and could see for about 1/4 mile. I was driving about 45 in a 55 mph zone. In my rearview mirror I saw this white Cadillac come sliding up behind me, went off the road on my right, down in ditch and up on the other side, maintaining control and just missing pine trees and a fence. I stopped and went back to check on them, and everyone was fine until they found out I owned a business. Then they had to have the ambulance, Sheriffs dept. and State Patrol. I was charged with driving too slow??? The wife of the guy driving was supposed to be at work at 7:30 and it was 8:00 so she was late and therefore he was speeding. I was later advised by the State patrol that if I was ever in a situation like this again and the accident was behind me to just keep on going, especially if they didn't hit me. I am very leary about checking on people now and don't know what I'll do next time.

    Reply

• February 8, 2009 by Ann

  If you go to source documents you find out (and this should have been in the story here) that both women were high and drunk. Ms. Torti's judgment was probably impaired. She may have misread the situation regarding whether the car was going to explode and ignored the prudent act of leaving her friend there. She may in fact be guilty of negligence, carelessness and stupidity causing great bodily harm. I don't like the upshot but I also don't want people of impaired judgment like Ms Torti trying to save me. OTOH, for all the good that others like Mr. Hood (above) do, they should not be punished. I myself was saved by a friend while we were swimming in the ocean as teens. I was fatigued, he was a trained lifeguard and he just brought me in. We need to amend the law to allow for prudent rescues by those of unimpaired judgment. Maybe some good can come out of Torti's bad judgment after all.

  Reply

  • February 11, 2010 by Miles C.

    Said Ann: >"We need to amend the law to allow for prudent rescues by those of unimpaired judgment." Ah, but who decides whether the rescue was "prudent" or the rescuer's judgment was "unimpaired"? A jury? The whole point of the Good Samaritan statute is to prevent rescuers from being dragged in front of a jury and having to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to prove they weren't negligent.

    Reply

  • November 2, 2011 by Steve

    I agree about the source documents Ann. Having seen this story before, the author, Ms. McManus, left out some details. As I recall the car hit a pole, Torti saw "smoke" and pulled Van Horn out. That all had been drinking seems pretty certain. I remember thinking Torti saw steam from the radiator (hitting a pole usually means a front-end collision) and in her impaired state erroneously thought it was on fire. I remember VanHorn's friends testifying there was no fire or smoke, so maybe that lends credence to my theory.

    So some people say there was no fire; Torti thought there was. Was she liable because she was stupid, impaired, or both?

    Reply

    • December 19, 2011 by Concern

      Seriously, since they were both drunk, she should be grateful that she is still alive after hitting the poll, and she should be prosecuted for a DUI and possible attempted involuntary manslaughter of all others in the vehicle, if we are seeking to purse the law to its full extent. That is fair in all sense of justice and the legal system. However, if this were done, the state would be seen as insensitive for prosecuting a paraplegic, but yet its fine for her to seek to blame some one for coming to her rescue whether impaired or not. What if the car was on Fire, logically speaking it would be best to remove her from the vehicle, fire not or not, because if she did die in a fire (that she did not perceive) then she would be sued for negligent homicide. And while we're suing everyone for our mistakes and problems, why not sure her other friends for being accomplices to the "impaired good samaritan act" as they should have stopped her if there was no clear and present danger.

    • December 25, 2011 by Franklin Johnson

      The answer my friends is, If you sue and you lose YOU PAY the costs.

• February 9, 2009 by Sally G

  I'd like to think I'd help and, if I made the decision not to, it would be because I either didn't know enough to be confident, or I thought the situation was a trap. (We had a situation in New Jersey in which a young woman, not dressed for the elements, was shivering on the side of a highway and trying to flag down help. The first woman who stopped let her use a cell phone, but she called the three friends who had supposedly abused her. The driver left, prudently in my estimation, though I think the driver should have called 911 for the girl, though she didn't herself. A male driver stopped and picked up the young woman, dropped her at a hospital and left, coming back to talk to the authorities only on his sister's advice. I don't know any more details, so can't really comment.) I do agree with the earlier comments that if I were the one in danger, I would accept any rescue attempt, even if the upshot was to leave me worse off. Suing for financial damages, especially among friends, can't lead to any good outcome. There was obviously a lot of contributing factors in the California car accident, and sometimes things are just tragic accidents, and there's no one person to blame. This seems to me to be one of those situations.

  Reply

• February 9, 2009 by Stephen R

  I think this story may be a situation wherein we don't know the entire situation. I generally agree that I would stop, (and in fact have done so -- such as when I saw a woman run off the road and into a ditch off the expressway), but I also think that it is possible to act negligently when trying to assist -- especially if the rescuer is intoxicated as is likely in this story. So, suing "good Samaritans" is generally a bad idea, but that doesn't mean that you can do any damned thing to a person and then say "I was just trying to help".

  Reply

• February 9, 2009 by J

  Ms. Torti's judgment may have in fact been impaired...but the victim made herself a victim by the act of getting in the car with an impaired driver. In fact there would have been no need for rescue had the accident not happened.

  Reply

  • December 10, 2011 by JR

    Thank you. Finally a voice of reason... Everyone seems to be ready to blame Torti for pulling her friend out and being impaired while assessing the situation, but nobody wants to blame Vanhorn for being impaired and trusting her safety to the one she chose to ride with.

    Reply

• February 10, 2009 by Mark Powers

  Is the injured woman suing to obtain financial resources, perhaps, instead of punishing an ex-friend? Did we jump to conclusions? Some people who are injured need large cash settlements to finance treatment and equipment. I have heard of people actually suing themselves in order to get sums of needed cash from insurance policies. Is that the situation here, or is the injured woman really lashing out at her friend? Not all law suits are from bad faith.

  Reply

  • December 6, 2011 by Karen

    If that is the case, then why not sue the impaired driver?

    Reply

• February 10, 2009 by susan

  I think this will deter anyone form even considering to stop and offer assistance to a fellow human being in trouble. When someone tries to help in good faith, I do not believe they should be punished for it...what kind of message is that sending; its OK to walk past a person in need?

  Reply

• February 12, 2009 by ec

  Like the writer, I read the facts as well. The helper was impaired and overreacted, but this is a "very typical' reaction to an emergency situation. I remember helping a young woman who hit a guard rail get out of the car with her child. Another helper, a guy, was hysterical saying the car was going to blow up. He was not drunk, just hysterical. Under the "prudent' theory would you hold the hysterical responder liable? If impairment is the standard than you may deter the person who has had a drink from responding. Bad facts make for bad law and the jurists know this.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.