Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha
The legislative branch of federal and state governments draft and adopt laws. Those laws reflect policy decisions of legislators elected by the people. Judges swear to uphold all of those laws, regardless of whether they "like" them from a policy standpoint. Good judges are able to set aside their personal preferences and enforce the will of the people as reflected in the law.
Here, the California legislature passed a law which only granted immunity from first responders providing medical assistance. The court determined that the friend did not qualify for immunity under the law which was passed by the state legislature. As a result, the friend will be liable for money damages if a jury determines (1) that the friend was negligent and (2) the friend deserves to pay for that negligence.
So, your problem isn't with the court's decision, it is with the narrowness of the immunity granted by the legislature for good samaritans. If you have a problem with the decision, take it up with a California state legislator. Alternatively, you can become an anarchist and hope that we get rid of those pesky "laws" which dictate the outcome of cases.
More often than not, criticisms of the justice system are totally unfounded. The criticisms usually amount to attacks on policy choices reflected in laws. Since laws are passed by the people through their representatives in legislatures, criticisms of the justice system usually amount to, "We the people hate laws that we the people helped pass. But, because we hate lawyers, we blame the judges for enforcing the laws we passed."
|
I generally agree with you, but this case exemplifies why somebody back in England a long time ago started using the word "however". As in, the law states such and such, however...