A Good Samaritan Law is law is known as a law that provides someone with immunity from civil liability (a lawsuit) when going aid who is in need of aid. The law provides protection even if in fact, the Good Samaritan negligently and accidentally causes injury to the person they are assisting.
 
Until now, a Good Samaritan was held harmless, but this week a California Supreme Court ruled this week that the Good Samaritan could indeed be sued for reckless care. Is this any different then before? It does not seem that a Good Samaritan could recklessly help a person at any time, the difference is that Good Samaritan laws covered the harm during the aide of a person under “negligence.”
 
The basis of the case is that a woman was pulled from a car in a flood by her friend just before it was about to submerge; Lisa Torti and her daughter were pulled to safety by their friend Alexander Van Horne and Torti suffered paralysis from the process of the rescue. Van Horne may now face a civil lawsuit. The details of what is to follow since the California Supreme Court just cleared the way for suit.
 
In the opinion, the three dissenting justices argued, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."
 
The 4-3 ruling declared that while no one is obligated to help at the scene of an emergency, those who do must "exercise due care." It also specified that the state's Good Samaritan law protects only those who provide medical attention—and pulling someone from a car doesn't qualify. The dissenting judges criticized that distinction as far too narrow.
 
Justice Marvin R. Baxter, who wrote the opinion for the dissenters, said the ruling was "illogical" because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care (like CPR) but denies it for potentially life-saving actions (like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.)