Comments on: Court action may discourage First Aid and CPR training

By: Terry

Terry — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:32:39 +0000

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!

By: Terry

Terry — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:21:42 +0000

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.

By: Steve M

Steve M — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:41:54 +0000

@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.

By: jv

jv — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:44:59 +0000

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.