Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog….

You have basically restated GruntDoc’s argument and the Court’s minority and dissenting opinion — which are textual arguments. The majority opinion follows the rules of statutory construction. The Legislature wrote California’s EMS Act with full knowledge of these rules and with the intent to create limited and special immunity for those serving in the State’s EMS system. Monday morning quarterbacking doesn’t improve with age — especially after 28 years.

“The presumption here is that there exists in the United States a “Good Samaritan” law that covers with immunity the actions of all rescuers.”

I make no such claim. The law was written specifically to deal with that legal situation. The law does not specify medical emergencies and there is no sound reason to create this arbitrary distinction that the court has pulled out of thin air. Many states do have Good Samaritan laws to prevent the application of common law. If this were an accepted part of common law, there would not be much reason to add this, if the intent is to encourage people to help others. If the intent is not to encourage people to help others, what is the intent?

There is no specification of any level of training.

There is no specification of any type of emergency, such as a medical emergency.

Two restrictions. The omission of emergency medical facilities. The requirement to act in good faith.

As for it being within the EMS act, EMS has been known to move people on occasion. In what way does leaving a person in a hazardous situation promote EMS in California?

If it were written, “in order to increase extrication time, only medical treatment shall be covered,” then there would be some validity to the majority opinion. Oddly, the legislature did not write that.

What good reason would there be to protect incompetence when performing CPR, but not when moving a person from a possible danger?

If you wish to argue whether the legislature should have written a Good Samaritan law, that is a different debate. They did write the law. It probably is too broad, but limiting Good Samaritan coverage to medical treatment, does not make the law better.

The intent of the law is to not discourage a person from acting in an emergency. It is not to have them research any possible related law, consider the placement of the law, and consult with an attorney, before acting.

Simple clear direct language was used to accomplish that goal. Anything other than simple clear direct language would indicate something else.

The only thing I can say is that if the Court’s interpretation is correct, then the law is wrong and must be changed.

It is also idiotic to think that we would have a law that applies to the most dire emergencies when people must act rather than call their lawyers in their cell phones, and that this law would make hair-splitting distinctions between interventions that could be considered medical in nature and those that may not be.

The dissent talks about the dicotomy of medical vs. non-medical interventions. The justice does not go far enough. The interpretation of the majority is even more perverse because it affects the responder’s judgment about what to do in an emergency.

As a simple example from an area I know a little bit about, imagine one from scuba diving: You rescue a buddy that has had an accident underwater. He’s alive on the surface but as you are swimming him to the boat realize that he’s not breathing. You can can try to resucitate in the water (try it, it’s not easy), or you may decide that you can get him to help in a couple of minutes, but if you stop, put yourself in a position to do mouth-to-mouth, and attempt to do so, thus slowing progress because you are fighting waves, can’t signal the boat to get closer, and can’t even see it most of the time because of the waves, thus risking swimming in circles; let’s say it will take 20-30 minutes. What do you do? Well, obviously, according to the their Honors you start to resucitate, since that’s a medical procedure and you can’t get sued for doing it. Damn the patient, right?