Read about the lawsuit against a rescuer in California. Both women were out drinking and had an accident. The passenger feared the car would catch on fire (the photos show it didn't).
Story of plaintiff: She was dazed and was having trouble getting the door open. The passenger came around and "jerked me out like a rag doll" and dropped her on a hard surface. She alleges that this caused her to be a paraplegic and suffer liver laceration.
Story of defendant: She thought she heard an explosion when they hit (no evidence of an explosion from the photos I saw).
Arguments of Defendant: She thought she was doing the right thing for her friend and "medical care providers" are immuned by statute from negligent medical care in an attempt to rescue in an emergency.
Arguments of Plaintiff: If the defendant was worried about a fire why didn't she carry her away from the car to protect her from a potential fire. But for being jerked from the car at an angle and dropped to the ground she would have survived the car wreck without suffering paraplegia. Defendant was not a trained health care provider rendering medical treatment so is not covered by the California statute referring to emergency medical care.
Ruling of the court: The statute relied upon by the Defendant does not provide immunity except for medical care and defendant was not a medical care provider providing medical care.
My thoughts: It is interesting that health care providers are immuned but not the everyday untrained person, (possibly the lobbyists were less concerned about the liability of those who were not paying their salaries). I personally am glad that people may hesitate jerking me from a car and dropping me to the concrete after an accident unless my car is actually on fire and they exercise as much caution as possible to keep from adding to my injuries.
The jury must find that the defendant acted differently than a prudent person would have acted under same or similar circumstances. If the jury felt that there was reasonable evidence that the plaintiff was in eminent danger of the car catching on fire and the defendant was reasonable in the manner she pulled her friend from the wreck--and that there is a foreseeable connecting link between the actions by defendant and the paraplegia--then the jury will rule for the defendant. Remember, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. I suspect presenting credible medical proof that the paraplegia is related to the rescue attempt rather than the crash will be problematic.
I personally came up on an accident in which the driver was still strapped in a car with the side ripped off of it. There was steam coming from the engine and what I thought was smoke. Rather than unbuckling her and risking further injury I stood ready to do so until the paramedics arrived. Threat of lawsuit or not, I hope that rescuers will act in the same manner if I were in that situation.
