Court action may discourage First Aid and CPR training
December 20, 2008 · Written by Steve M · · E-Mail This Post
Discouraging First Aid and CPR training
I’m just not sure what to think about this issue. As someone who has trained lay persons in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automated external defibrillator (AEDs), I understand the value of such programs.
Now, the California Supreme Court has ruled that a woman who pulled a co-worker from a car wrapped around a telephone pole is not immune from civil liability. Her co-worker is suing her for additional injuries that were possibly inflicted when she was pulled out of the vehicle that was leaking fluid and smoking.
What a terrible tragedy. Alexandra Van Horn is now a paraplegic after the 2004 accident on Halloween night and her co-worker, Lisa Torti has to live day to day with the thought that she may have made the wrong decision pulling Van Horn out of the vehicle.
Morrissey over at Hot Air has more.
Torti and Van Horn traveled in separate cars, and the driver of Van Horn’s car ran into a light pole at 45 MPH. Torti testified that she saw smoke and liquid coming from the car and thought the vehicle would explode, trapping Van Horn. She rushed to pull her co-worker from the car, and Van Horn alleges that Torti aggravated a broken vertebra that damaged her spinal cord. She sued Torti (and the driver) for causing her paralysis.
Again, this was an accident and I do not think that Torti meant to cause additional harm to Van Horn. The state Supreme Courts decision is worrisome to me. What would you do if you were in California and this happened to you?
If you did nothing and the car went up in flames, you could be sued. Totri did something, and she was sued. Could you make the decision – especially to move a friend – if you had only seconds to act?
I’ve been in a similar situations three times. The first time a woman was hit by a car in the street (Route 44 in Canton) and she was on the ground in the middle of the first westbound lane of traffic. At the time, traffic was heavy and at a dead stop after the accident. It was daylight. The woman was probably OK, but I took the simple precaution to monitor her airway, breathing and circulation and stabilize her neck while we waited about three or four minutes for police and EMS to arrive.
If traffic was light and moving fast, first responders – without a backboard – would need to make the quick decision to move her if she or the first responders were in danger of getting hit again. If it was dark, the situation would quickly escalate to “really serious.”
What would you do?
The second and third situations happened in the Bahamas. In both instances, the decision was made to leave the patient in the vehicle, monitor ABCs, stabilize the neck and wait for emergency teams. Let’s just say back in 1999 in the Bahamas, you might be waiting for awhile. Both accidents were one car wrecks that left passengers in rough shape, and it took more than 30 minutes for rescue personnel to arrive.
One of the accidents happened right in front of our place of business in a suburban area. We heard the car hit the tree head-on, no breaks. The woman in the car was not wearing a seat belt and ended up wedged between the dash and the seat. With fire extinguishers on hand and no smoke or fire, we kept her put and stabilized the neck.
After an additional 15 to 20 minutes of rescue teams messing with trying to get her out, she got pretty damn pissed off and extracted herself. At least she had a neck collar on by that time.
If there was a fire, what would you do?
If you’re in California, you might want to think about having the victim sign a liability release prior to becoming your patient.
Here’s a link to the full LA Times piece. I’m not sure Torti had any training, and I’m not sure if she did the right thing, but court actions like this provide an opportunity to promote first responder training.
If you get the chance take a first aid course, CPR course, and get AED training – the things are everywhere nowadays – and stay up-to-date with your training. It takes about 16 hours for the original training (all three programs) and refresher programs can be done in less than half that time.
With the training, you can make the decision to act – or not – with some knowledge and training behind you.
Comments
4 Responses to “Court action may discourage First Aid and CPR training”
Got something to say?
At this point, registration is not required to post comments. The first time you post a comment, there will be a delay while the it is reviewed by the owner. Once approved, your future comments should display immediately if you use the same e-mail address and if it is not blocked by the spam filter. Do not assume comments are endorsed by, or reflect the opinion of this blog's owner.
I am currently working on one of those privacy statements and terms of use.
Instead of getting the facts third hand, you would be better off reading the case yourself. Other witnesses say that there was no smoke or liquid or anything indicating that the truck was going to set on fire. Also, EMS arrived within moments. So, it is a contested issue whether Torti had a reasonable belief that it was necessary to intercede before the ambulance arrived “moments” later. The plaintiff deserves her day in court.
Even if your inttentions are the best, you do not get to act in a negligent manner resulting in severe injury of another person.
I had a friend who was at Yosemite when someone deliberately drove their car into a tree. First, she had to argue with people not to move him because of a potential spinal cord injury. Then when his breathing stopped and she could not detect a heart beat, she had to argue with people to help her remove him so she could start cpr. Luckily, the EMS arrived. Unfortunately, the man was pronounced dead at the hospital.
@jv: As noted in the title, I do think that legal action like this may discourage people from helping those in need. I was not there so I do not know what happened, but you can be certain that lawyers on both sides are spinning their case. Did the other witnesses take any action from preventing her actions (removing the victim from the car)? Sorry – trouble with Internet connection so I can not research further.
If the front end of the car struck the pole at 45 mph, there most certainly would be fluids on the ground and steam from the engine coolant that could have been mistaken for smoke. Another thing to consider is that there is a burning smell which is given off when the air bags deploy.
Totri acted prudently under the circumstances and also put herself in great risk by doing so. There could have been live wires or an unstable light pole to consider.
Totri was not negligent as an earlier poster described her. She made a decision in good conscience and took the action intending to preserve the life of Van Horn. The action was well intentioned and many states have “Good Samaritan” laws to protect people from litigitous people like Van Horn and the “Slip and Fall” lawyers that love these types of cases.
I suppose the case could also be made that Van Horn was operating her vehicle negligently by not driving it in a safe manner. After all, she struck a stationary object. If she were driving in a safe manner, she would not have put herself in this situation.
If the court rules for Van Horn, it certainly would be a signal for “Good Samaritans” everywhere to look the other way and let the accident victims burn alive. Van Horn should be ashamed of herself, and Totri should be commended.
And now that I’ve read the story, Van Horn obviously knew that the driver of the vehicle had been drinking. She was the one who made the bad decision by getting into a car with a drunk!
Van Horn has no one to blame but herself!