The California Supreme Court was not working with Mother Teresa, Father Flanagan, and Florence Nightengale. And the activities that preceded the accident were not the stuff of a Mayberry social. Still, the decision does give us pause. Lisa Torti pulled Alexandra Van Horn from the car in which Van Horn was riding at the time the car’s driver, one Anthony Glen Watson, struck a curb and then a light pole whilst going 45 mph. Watson struck said curb and light pole after having imbibed at a local bar from 10:00 PM until 1:30 AM.  Torti, who had smoked and inhaled marijuana with Van Horn earlier in the evening and also imbibed at the bar, testified that the crashed car was smoking (?) and that she felt she should save Van Horn before flames ensued. Van Horn, who was paralyzed as a result of the accident (and, she claimed, Torti’s pulling her from the wreck) sued Torti and several other party animals riding along in the two vehicles for their negligence. Torti claimed immunity under California’s Good Samaritan statute, but the defense, under the state supreme court’s ruling, was not to be hers.
 On October 31, 2004, Torti, Van Horn, and Jonelle Freed were “relaxing” at Torti’s home where they both smoked marijuana. Anthony Glen Watson and Dion Ofoegbu joined the ladies until 10 when they all headed to a local bar where, as noted earlier, they drank until 1:30 AM. At 1:30 AM, Van Horn and Freed left with Watson, leaving Torti to ride with Ofoegbu.Â
After Watson crashed, both Ofoegbu and Torti stopped and got out of their car to render aid. Watson got out of the car by himself, Ofoegbu helped Freed out by opening a door for her, and Torti pulled Van Horn from the car. Van Horn said Torti pulled on her arm and dragged her from the car like a “rag doll.”
Emergency personnel arrived moments later. Van Horn had a lacerated liver and damaged vertebrae that rendered Van Horn paraplegic. Van Horn’s suit alleged that Torti’s pulling of her from the crashed car caused her paralysis and that Torti was negligent in pulling her from the car and not waiting for trained personnel. There were differing accounts on whether the car was smoking and if there were flames. In other words, the danger to Van Horn was not clear. In fact, given the evening’s activities, not a one of them was operating in anything less than a fog at the time of the accident. This tragedy should be tied to inhalation and guzzling, not a misguided rescue attempt.Â
The trial court granted summary judgment for Torti on the grounds that she enjoyed immunity from suit for negligence under the California Good Samaritan law. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Good Samaritan law applied only to those rendering medical care, and that Torti had not provided medical care. The California Supreme Court held that whether Torti enjoyed immunity depended on the meaning of “emergency care,” and “emergency care” did not include pulling someone from a vehicle.
We have been trying to fix this “helping others who are hurt” problem for decades with litigation, statutory immunity, and even criminal statutes that impose sanctions for those who refuse to stop and help. You can’t legislate or litigate your way through complex ethical issues. In fact, when you try, you make things worse, which is exactly what the California Supreme Court has done. Here are the ethical issues, now trampled by laws, suits, and criminal statutes:
1. We have an obligation to stop and help those who are hurt. Our parents taught us this because they were committed to civilized society.
2. Those we help have an obligation to be grateful. We may not be the best, but, at the time, we are all they have. Poor form to sue those who did their best. You don’t punish those who try, and all in good faith.Â
Until we embrace these two ethical obligations, we can’t solve the accident and aid problems. We will continue to litigate, thereby eroding the traits of compassion and gratitude — the two components we keep trying to ignore in our solutions. They are in us; let them flourish.   Â