Under their interpretation of the parable, the priest and the Levite got it right.

Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.
The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.

But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.

In other words, folks, the prudent rule to follow in California is “LET THAT SUCKER DIE!” After all, the alternative is being saddled with an insurmountable debt if someone decdes your course of action was incorrect – and that someone will always be a lawyer.

Oh, and when this case gets to a jury, hereÂ’s hoping for a bit of jury nullification.

Posted by: Greg at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Most of us are pretty firmly against discrimination by government – and are usually pretty troubled by it when it occurs in private entities as well. But are there times when discrimination is not only not a bad thing, but essential to a group’s maintaining its identity? And if so, how should laws and institutional rules deal with that discrimination? That is a key question in this Florida case – one which deals with how a university should deal with an organization that is organized to promote a certain ethic and point of view of a religious nature.

A Christian fraternity asked federal judges Wednesday to recognize the group as part of student life at the University of Florida, despite a school rule that bars Gator groups from discriminating based on religion.
Beta Upsilon Chi lawyers told a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the university's policy threatens their core beliefs and that inviting non-Christians would undermine their mission.

"They're not going to be as open if everyone in the group is not sharing their Christian values," fraternity lawyer Tim Tracy said.

University lawyer Chris Bartolomucci said student groups are an extension of the educational process and should be open to intellectually curious students. He said no non-Christians have attempted to join the fraternity to hijack it, a hypothetical concern raised by the judges during a hearing in Atlanta.

Now if this were a group designed to deal with any other sort of viewpoint, this would be an open and shut case – the group would be able to restrict its membership and leadership to those who hold to the point of view established in the charter of the organization. But we as a society tend to look at religious restrictions differently, and courts generally apply a higher standard to instances of religious discrimination than other viewpoint based restrictions. Still, when a group is formed around a religious viewpoint, limiting membership (or at least position of authority) it strikes me that it needs to be treated just as any other ideological group. Indeed, the most obvious reason for doing so is the fact that there have been efforts by some opposed to the group’s point of view to join the organization in an attempt to undermine its reason for existence. Requiring a Christian (or Jewish or Buddhist, or atheist) group to admit those who hold to other religious beliefs is to effectively neuter them.

Frankly, this case is more important than it appears at first glance. Colleges and universities across the country have attempted to impose similar restrictions on religiously-oriented groups (particularly evangelical Christian groups) over the last several years. Until and unless it becomes clear that the freedom of association rights of religious groups includes the exact same right to set belief-based membership requirements as non-religious groups, we will continue to see public institutions exhibit hostility to religiously-affiliated groups that seek to be true to their mission.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.