If in passing you saw a stranger who needed help, and you were the only one around, would you stop to assist? What if a friend were in danger, would you risk your life to save him/her? Most people would probably take the initiative to aid someone in crisis.
Such was the case for Lisa Torti, a 30-year old Las Vegan, who in 2004 rescued a friend from the wreckage of a major car accident in California. Sadly, today that friend is a paraplegic, supposedly as a result of Lisa pulling her from the car 4 years ago.
This week, California passed a ruling that would allow Torti's friend, Alexandra Van Horn, to sue her for allegedly causing her paralysis. Torti claims that following the accident she saw smoke and thought the car was about to explode, and therefore rushed to get Van Horn out of the car. Van Horn argues that there was no imminent danger, that Torti acted recklessly, and that she should have instead called the proper professionals to assist.
Good Samaritan laws have been established to protect from liability those who come to the aid of others. There are stipulations, however, such as the principle of imminent peril, which applies to the Torti/Van Horn case - cause of hurt or injury can make a rescuer liable if there is not evidence of imminent danger, according to this principle. The problem is, such as the case of Torti, how can you defend your own judgment for "imminent peril"? Torti acted with urgency in an attempt to save her friend from a situation that she saw as certain death. In my eyes, this is a good deed that should not be challenged, nor have any consequence. If my life was in jeopardy, I would sure hope that friends, family, or even strangers would reach out to help.
This is a really unfortunate story. What's even more troubling is that with this ruling, people are going to now think twice before acting on their good samaritan instincts.
No comments:
Post a Comment