Interpretation of law varies with a different understanding of judges or different explanation from the defendant. In this case, it is what happened when Plaintiff Alexandra filled a lawsuit against Lisa Torti who had helped her out of an accident but ended up being paralyzed. According to Torti, she claimed that when she approached the spot of the accident, she noticed liquid-like substance dripping from the car and smoke. Afraid that the vehicle might explode with Plaintiff inside she decided to help her out. However, on the other hand, witnesses claimed that they never noticed any smoke meaning there were no signs of explosion; Plaintiff claiming that Torti yanked to her “like a rag doll.” Therefore using this case the paper below aims to identify the legal issues in the case, the rule of that was applied by the court in resolving the cased and a summary of facts and analysis used by the court. In addition to that, the paper has identified the conclusion of the court on the case hence providing a summary of any ethical issues in the case.
Legal issues in the case
In this case, there are issues which should be considered in concluding the court. Firstly it is the issue of emergency medical care. It is evident that under the California law, there is an Act that states that on delivering emergency medical service is secured in case of ‘damage.’ Therefore it means that if one dies receiving emergency medical treatment, the one offering the procedure is not responsible for his/her death. This is evident in section 1797.5 of the Californian law. However, in this case, the defendant did not mention that she was giving any emergency medical treatment to the accident victim. On the other hand, the prosecutor admitted that she was stuck in the vehicle.
The rule of law used
It is firstly to understand that firstly the court ruled in favor of the defendant but after appeal, the court ruled in favor of prosecutor Plaintiff. The rule of law is excised power governed by the principle of accountability; open laws government and accessible and impartial dispute resolution. Under this case, this case during the first rule, the rule used was accountability while on the appeal was just laws.
Summary of facts and analysis used by the court
Firstly it is essential to understand that section 1797.5 is only applicable when rendering emergency medical treatment. Therefore using this fact, before the court defendant did not mention offering any medical treatment to the prosecutor hence the court ruling against her. In addition to that having that the situation was not emergence; therefore, it means that the section was not applicable.
The conclusion reached by the court
The court concluded that under the section 1797.5, Torti would be secured by the law. However, the concern is raised by the fact that there was no proof that the situation was an “emergency” since witness said that there were no signs of an explosion. Therefore the courts basing on this evidence conclude in favor of Plaintiff.
Independent Summary and Support of court conclusion
It is evident that Torti tried to apply emergency medical treatment by taking Plaintiff out of the vehicle. However, she does not state to the court that her intentions were medical oriented. On the other hand, witnesses claimed that there was no signs explosion meaning that the situation was not emergency one. Therefore I think that the court ruling in favor of plaintiff was it was fair.