Good Samaritan Reform: AB 83 (2009)
Provided non-medical Good Samaritans the same liability protections afforded medical
Provided non-medical Good Samaritans the same liability protections afforded medical Good Samaritans. The bill stemmed from the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Van Horn v. Watson, in which Lisa Torti rescued Alexandra Van Horn from a vehicle involved
in an accident, and, in doing so, might have caused Ms. Van Horn’s subsequent paralysis. The Court determined that Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102 provides liability protection only to medical professionals who provide emergency medical care. The Court’s interpretation meant that though Ms. Torti may have reasonably believed that removing Ms. Van Horn from a potentially explosive car was necessary to save her life, Ms. Torti may still be sued for injuries allegedly caused by the rescue. A.B. 83 amended Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102 to ensure that it provides liability protections to all people, both medical and laypeople, who help out in good faith at the scene of an emergency
Latest News
View all news
The Lab Whose Junk Science Is Fueling a Frenzy of Litigation
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
Lawsuit Advertising Frenzy Fuels Georgia’s Litigation Epidemic
Law Firms Spent $168M+ on 2.2M Ads in Georgia
Trial Lawyers’ Dual Grip on Pennsylvania Politics and Public Opinion Revealed in New ATRA Reports
ATRA’s Latest Studies Reveal Financial Influence and Lack of Transparency in Pennsylvania’s Campaign Finance Systems
Reports Reveal Influence of Trial Lawyers on New Jersey’s Legal Landscape
Two New Reports Analyze Legal Services Advertising Trends and Campaign Contributions
California Trial Lawyers’ Influence on Legal Landscape Exposed
Two New Reports Unveil Disturbing Trends in Legal Services Advertising and Plaintiffs’ Firms’ Political Contributions
New Reports Expose Trial Lawyers’ Grip on Nevada Politics and Legal Advertising Trends
In-depth analysis unveils trial lawyers’ staggering advertising and political spending, exposing tactics used to shape public opinion and legal outcomes.