Van Horn v. Watson
Filed December 18, 2008
Cite as 2008 SOS 6769

Good Samaritan Who Renders Non-Medical Aid Found Liable for Victim’s Injuries

Alexandra Van Horn was in a car accident. Lisa Torti saw the accident and went to Van Horn’s aid. Before emergency personnel arrived, Torti pulled Van Horn from the car, apparently out of concern that the vehicle might catch fire. Van Horn suffered damage to her spinal cord, which rendered her a paraplegic.

Van Horn sued both Anthony Watson, who was driving, and Torti. As to Torti, Van Horn alleged that she would not have been rendered paraplegic had Torti not pulled her from the car.

Torti sought summary judgment, contending that she was immune from liability pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 1799.102, which provides, in pertinent part, “that no person who renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency, in good faith, and not for compensation, shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission”.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Torti.

The court of appeal reversed, holding that Torti enjoyed no immunity under the emergency medical care statute.

The appellate court questioned the following key issues of the case:

• whether Health and Safety Code section 1799.102 applied to any emergency care rendered at the scene of any emergency
• whether it applied only to emergency medical care rendered at the scene of a medical emergency

The court concluded that it applied to emergency medical care only. Thus, Torti’s act of pulling Van Horn from the car was not covered.

The California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 1799.102 applies to emergency medical care only.

The court found that section 1799.102 is clearly susceptible to plain language interpretation and it applies to medical care only, which is more consistent with the statutory scheme of which it was part.

Further, the court noted that the broader interpretation espoused by Torti would undermine the long-standing common law principle that a Good Samaritan who undertakes to come to the aid of another is under a duty to exercise due care. Torti’s broad interpretation would also render other “Good Samaritan” statutes “unnecessary surplusage”.

The state Supreme Court explained that the Legislature intended Health and Safety Code Sec. 1799.102 to apply only to “any person who rendered emergency medical care in good faith at the scene of a medical emergency”.

The California Supreme Court therefore affirmed a decision of the court of appeal, which held that the “Good Samaritan” statute, which immunizes from liability a person who renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency, does not apply to persons rendering non-medical assistance.