Academic Master

Laws and International Laws

Van Horn V. Watson

Interpretation of law varies with a different understanding of judges or different explanations from the defendant. In this case, it is what happened when Plaintiff Alexandra filed 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 a 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 an explosion. The Plaintiff claimed that Torti yanked her “like a rag doll.” Therefore, using this case, the paper below aims to identify the legal issues in the case, the rule that was applied by the court in resolving the case, and a summary of facts and analysis used by the court. In addition to that, the paper has identified the court’s conclusion 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 that should be considered when concluding the court case. Firstly, it is the issue of emergency medical care. It is evident that under California law, there is an Act that states that 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 important to understand that the court ruled in favor of the defendant, but after the appeal, the court ruled in favor of the prosecutor, the plaintiff. The rule of law is an 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, it 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, the defendant did not mention offering any medical treatment to the prosecutor, hence the court ruling against her. In addition to that, the situation did not emerge; therefore, it means that the section was not applicable.

The Conclusion Reached By The Court

The court concluded that under 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 the witness said that there were no signs of an explosion. Therefore, the courts, based on this evidence, conclude in favor of the 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 were no signs of an explosion, meaning that the situation was not an emergency one. Therefore I think that the court ruling in favor of plaintiff was it was fair.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message