Good Samaritans Die and Now their Families Face Fire Department Bills

Some of you may have read this story about two women in L.A. who came upon an accident and attempted to help, only to be electrocuted because a downed wire had fallen into water that gushed from a fire hydrant hit in the accident.

Their estates will now be getting bills for emergency services - to the tune of $1,300.

The four other civilians who were burned in the incident will also be getting mandatory bills from the L.A. fire department for emergency services such as hospital transport and on-scene medical treatment rendered by paramedics, a fire department spokesman explained to City News Service.

Mandatory bills!

The city's municipal code does not allow billing exemptions for good Samaritans, or the victims of violent crime, fire department spokesman Brian Humphrey told CNS.

No exemptions for Good Samaritans or victims of violent crimes?!?!

In the first place, aren't the burdensome taxes you already pay supposed to cover these services?

I know California is broke - and once again - it's the little guy they expect to bail them out. But, can't someone get outraged enough to figure out a way to write an exemption to the law for "innocent" victims? Good Samaritans get the same bills as gang bangers.

northhollywood.patch.com...

Thankfully - more good samaritans exist and are holding fundraisers to help these poor victims and their families.

City Councilman Paul Krekorian is expected to announce Thursday a fundraising effort to help pay the ambulance fees for two women electrocuted when they tried to help a driver in a Valley Village car crash.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

I'm thinking another important question here is why an ambulance response costs $1300....?

Presumably they did not think about the issue (good samaritan exemption for ambulance fees) in that county before now.

Not everything is paid for from taxes (many ambulances are run by private companies so that is how they get paid).

I agree that they should not have to pay the bill...

reply to post by Elton

Not everything is paid for from taxes (many ambulances are run by private companies so that is how they get paid).

Usually, private companies have contractual agreements with the city/county/town to respond to accidents. Those municipalities then pay those private companies (in this case by charging the victims). If they didn't have those agreements - imagine the free-for-all that would ensue.

I applaud the good Samaritans for their bravery.

But this is why the average citizen should not stick their neck out to help. Many think life is like the movies, it is not. Most Emergency response personnel is trained to recognize dangers to the the ones they are trying to save and dangers to them selves as well. Known as ORM (operational risk management) The term Operational Risk Management (ORM) is defined as a continual cyclic process which includes risk assessment, risk decision making, and implementation of risk controls, which results in acceptance, mitigation, or avoidance of risk. ORM is the oversight of operational risk, including the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes and systems; human factors; or external events. (WIKI

The persons presented here, where obviously trying to help, but like I said their lack of training only made them a victim of circumstance.

The real question here is whether or not the tax payers should pay the bill of a eager but unprepared rescue attempt by ignorant helpers...

My personal response is: No, unless there is no trained rescue personnel available. At that point do what you can to resolve the situation without making yourself a victim as well.

Actually, there's a lawsuit here. In 2009 Former Governor Schwartzenegger enacted good Samaritan laws:

Since the common law rule provides little incentive to people to help one another in emergency situations, the majority of states have passed laws — known as Good Samaritans statutes — to make exceptions to this rule. Under California's Good Samaritan statute (Health & Safety Code §1799.102), those who act in good faith to provide emergency care at the scene of an emergency are immune from civil liability.


Source:

knowledgebase.findlaw.com...

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Thanks for the info - Such a shame they have to be "protected" from civil lawsuits. Crazy world.

Doesnt seem anything is awry here.

They got burned and received medical attention for which they were billed.

It doesnt matter how or why. All that matters is they were in need of a service, used said service and were subsequently billed for the service.

They could have refused treatment. Did they think just because their intentions were "noble" that they were exempt?

This sounds just like that teenager that attempted to save another kid in the Ocean, then needed a rid to the hospital.
They complained about the bill as well but just because youre injured doing something good, doesnt exempt you from having to pay your Doctor bills.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

They could have refused treatment. Did they think just because their intentions were "noble" that they were exempt?

I don't think they could have refused treatment as they were knocked unconscious and subsequently died. But, I guess that's neither here nor there.

So the message is - before you step in to help someone - make sure you can afford it.