Unstoppable force, meet immovable object

A very quick post. I would love to research this more and write up a big long post, but I just do not have the time right now.

First, a quick intro to "Good Samaritan" laws. They are laws enacted to protect those coming to the aid of another from prosecution for any harm that may come to a person due to emergency care rendered. These laws vary from state to state regarding whom they protect and in what ways. Here is an excerpt from California's via this article from the LA Times whic has a story about the incident I am going to bring up:

"No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission"

Enter a case out of California. Lisa Torti saw her coworker in a car crash. Her coworker, Alexandra Van Horn, was paralyzed in the car crash. Torti claims to have seen smoke and liquid coming from the vehicle and feared an imminent explosion[1]. She ran to the car and pulled an unconscious Van Horn from the vehicle, yanking her from the car "like a rag doll"[2].

Van Horn sues. Torti appeals. They end up at the state supreme court. The court hears both sides and concludes in a 4-3 decision that the above law did not protect Torti because pulling Van Horn from the car did not qualify as "medical care."

In a dissent written by Justice Marvin Baxter, the minority deemed “illogical” recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.

"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."

I gotta say that I side with the dissent here. But the problematic aspects of this ruling aren't why I am writing this.

Let's contrast this with Vermont's Good Samaritan's law:

A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

In case you didn't catch it, Vermont requires you to help. Remember Seinfeld's series finale? Yeah, that kind of requires.

So let me ask, what would happen California had the same type of requirement? Or what if Vermont had a judge who ruled similarly to this California ruling?

You can't not help but you can be sued if you do.

Think it can't happen? I wouldn't hold my breath...

So what do you think about mandatory help laws? The California ruling?

*****
[1] Chances are that what she saw was some liquid, probably antifreeze and the "smoke" was actually steam from the antifreeze hitting the hot engine. Doubtful if there was any real danger of explosion at all, but I used to be in emergency services and have learned about this stuff. The general public has not and only knows what they see on TV. I could talk for a while about the ways in which ridiculously unrealistic cinematic special effects have warped the ability for the public at large to react to real life situations, but that is a different subject entirely.

[2] I heartily object to this phrase as it implies carelessness. How easily and carefully could you be when pulling an unconcscious adult from a car? Would they be limp and flop around?