Accident, please give me some feedback

[eok]

Yes. California's Good Samaritan laws had to be rewritten recently because they were so poorly written.

I was REALLY glad to see CA do this.

Unfortunately, many states still have Good Samaritan laws that leave the door open for law suits.

Reviewing some state's laws, I found good samaritans can be exposed to at least two legal risks in some states, if they provide any sort of assistance: 1) they should be able to demonstrate they posses training for medical aid they deliver and/or 2) they can be sued if "negligence" can be proved. For example, in some of those states: if you arrive upon the scene of a crashed car on fire and you pull the injured driver out of the car, you can be sued if they had an injury that their lawyer can prove was made worse due to negligence performing the extraction.

My advice to potential good samaritan skiers (many skiers here fit that category) is to review the good samaritan laws of the state(s) you ski/play. You might be surprised what you find. I know I was (I live in OR).

 

[NZRob]

I was REALLY glad to see CA do this.
Reviewing some state's laws, I found good samaritans can be exposed to at least two legal risks in some states, if they provide any sort of assistance: 1) they should be able to demonstrate they posses training for medical aid they deliver and/or 2) they can be sued if "negligence" can be proved. For example, in some of those states: if you arrive upon the scene of a crashed car on fire and you pull the injured driver out of the car, you can be sued if they had an injury that their lawyer can prove was made worse due to negligence performing the extraction.
(I live in OR).

 

[Pat AKA mustski]

This article is good summary of the recent change in CA good samaritan law: https://www.verywellhealth.com/no-good-samaritan-1298834

Previously the Good Samaritan law only applied to medical assistance and NOT to rescue assistance. So if you dragged a person out of the middle of a busy street and caused death or paralysis, the law did not cover you. Even under the newly rewritten law, there are issues with starting and stopping assistance or treatment. To summarize the article: "Moreover, under the current law, you can be found guilty of negligence if you start a rescue attempt and then abandon it for no particular reason." As always, the proof will be in the pudding. What qualifies as "no particular reason?"

 

[NZRob]

This article is good summary of the recent change in CA good samaritan law: https://www.verywellhealth.com/no-good-samaritan-1298834

Previously the Good Samaritan law only applied to medical assistance and NOT to rescue assistance. So if you dragged a person out of the middle of a busy street and caused death or paralysis, the law did not cover you. Even under the newly rewritten law, there are issues with starting and stopping assistance or treatment. To summarize the article: "Moreover, under the current law, you can be found guilty of negligence if you start a rescue attempt and then abandon it for no particular reason." As always, the proof will be in the pudding. What qualifies as "no particular reason?"

New Zealand laws (re traffic accidents at least) are quite different! Diametrically opposed almost:

Land Transport Act 1998, s 22(1)

If you’re involved, directly or indirectly, in an accident while driving, you must:

• stop
• find out if anyone has been injured, and
• give all the help you can to anyone who’s injured.

It’s a serious offence to fail to stop and check whether anyone has been injured, even if it turns out no-one was in fact hurt. If you don’t have a reasonable excuse you can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to $4,500. You’ll also be automatically disqualified from driving for at least six months.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 35

If someone is injured or killed in the accident and you fail to stop and check if anyone is injured and to help any injured people, you can be jailed for up to five years or fined up to $20,000. You must also be disqualified for at least one year.

 

[Pat AKA mustski]

New Zealand laws (re traffic accidents at least) are quite different! Diametrically opposed almost:

Land Transport Act 1998, s 22(1)

If you’re involved, directly or indirectly, in an accident while driving, you must:

• stop
• find out if anyone has been injured, and
• give all the help you can to anyone who’s injured.

It’s a serious offence to fail to stop and check whether anyone has been injured, even if it turns out no-one was in fact hurt. If you don’t have a reasonable excuse you can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to $4,500. You’ll also be automatically disqualified from driving for at least six months.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 35

If someone is injured or killed in the accident and you fail to stop and check if anyone is injured and to help any injured people, you can be jailed for up to five years or fined up to $20,000. You must also be disqualified for at least one year.

So much wiser! I think our politicians spend too much time trying to sound smart and not enough time actually being so.

 

[Pat AKA mustski]

New Zealand laws (re traffic accidents at least) are quite different! Diametrically opposed almost:

Land Transport Act 1998, s 22(1)

If you’re involved, directly or indirectly, in an accident while driving, you must:

• stop
• find out if anyone has been injured, and
• give all the help you can to anyone who’s injured.

It’s a serious offence to fail to stop and check whether anyone has been injured, even if it turns out no-one was in fact hurt. If you don’t have a reasonable excuse you can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to $4,500. You’ll also be automatically disqualified from driving for at least six months.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 35

If someone is injured or killed in the accident and you fail to stop and check if anyone is injured and to help any injured people, you can be jailed for up to five years or fined up to $20,000. You must also be disqualified for at least one year.

So much wiser! I think our politicians spend too much time trying to sound smart when they need to spend their time actually being so.