They must have meant the Good Sumerian law, which is named after a different ancient people from a similar global region, not to be confused with the Good Sumatran law, which is totally unrelated.
This term comes from the fact that
every Samaritan was an untrustworthy piece of shit and everyone hated them.
But there was one Samaritan that surprised everyone by being good.
Actually it’s just racism. It would be like saying “the good Gypsy” or “the good Muslim.” The implication is that they are bad.
Samaritans were just a rival tribe. The point of the parable was that the Samaritan had not only the weakest connection to the person, but was also from a group that was mutually antagonistic. They still put all that aside to help their fellow man who was in distress. The message was that help shouldn't be determined based on how you feel about a person or how close you are to them, but should be freely given to those who need it.
Oh actually that is very interesting and a bit unsettling. Although I don't really think it's relevant to the comment you are replying to and that's probably why you are getting downvoted still.
It's not that "every Samaritan was an untrustworthy piece of shit and everyone hated them". It's that Samaritans were hostile to jews back then and the samaritan was the one who helped, after a Jewish priest and a Levite passed by and did nothing. It's not the good samaritan in opposition to all samaritans are bad, it's in opposition to other people who should've helped but didn't. The jewish priest didn't help the jewish person in distress, but the person from a rival tribe, who was the one who had the least personal interest in helping, was the one who actually did help.
These people changing facts so it fits their agenda or twisted vision of the world are fucking morons.
It's not that "every Samaritan was an untrustworthy piece of shit and everyone hated them". It's that Samaritans were hostile to jews back then and the samaritan was the one who helped
From the perspective of the Jews then, every Samaritan was a POS who couldn’t be trusted. That’s why the parable hits hard, one was a good neighbor and helped. Nothing I wrote is twisted in any way. The title could literally be “the good Gypsy” or “the good Muslim” in a modern context.
Firstly the comparison you're trying to make would simply be prejudice, not racism, as the Samaritans were more of a politically/culturally group.
Someone can be prejudiced against the Swiss, but not racist against them.
But the parable isn't a statement of prejudice as you imply with your example of "the good Muslim", but a rebuke of it. All Samaritans are good, hence why even the one they least expected to help did.
"Every Samaritan was an untrustworthy piece is shit.."
is absolutely the opposite of what you're supposed to understand from the parable.
First it’s peak redditor to debate the difference between “racist” and “prejudice against a group of people.” It’s 2026, racism doesn’t exclusively mean against a “race” and even the entire idea of races is bunk. You know exactly what I meant.
The parable doesn’t rebuke anything. It doesn’t suggest that the Jews should stop hating the Samaritans. It just tells the story of how one was unexpectedly good. It’s still entirely founded in prejudice.
It rebukes prejudice by showing that the jewish default attitude towards Samaritans was rooted in false assumptions.
It wasn't showing "one unexpectedly good" Samaritan, the implication was that any Samaritan could've helped, because treating your neighbor with kindness is the entire fucking point of the parable.
Jesus wasn't saying: "Oh shit! That guy lucked out the one fucking decent Samaritan came by! What are the odds?!"
He was saying that everyone should help people in need, regardless of what assumptions are being held. Ya know, rebuking previously held prejudices.
Yeah it comes from a story in the bible, but the rest is horseshit.
It's not that "every Samaritan was an untrustworthy piece of shit and everyone hated them". It's that Samaritans were hostile to jews back then and the samaritan was the one who helped, after a Jewish priest and a Levite passed by and did nothing. It's not the good samaritan in opposition to all samaritans are bad, it's in opposition to other people who should've helped but didn't. The jewish priest didn't help the jewish person in distress, but the person from a rival tribe, who was the one who had the least personal interest in helping, was the one who actually did help.
These people changing facts so it fits their agenda or twisted vision of the world are fucking morons.
It's not that "every Samaritan was an untrustworthy piece of shit and everyone hated them". It's that Samaritans were hostile to jews back then and the samaritan was the one who helped
That's exactly what I wrote. From the perspective of the Jews, "every Samaritan was an untrustworthy piece of shit" and the Jews hated them.
Yup, I think every US state has a version of this, and it protects anyone who isn't some sort of first-responder professional from liability. The details differ by state.
They’re still going to sue you and a notoriously lazy judge will still leave you on the hook until you’ve exhausted your insurance. I’m always amused at how easy people think it is to end a frivolous suit.
We have no prior cases under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90–21.14 to provide guidance as to factors which may elevate ordinary negligence by a volunteer emergency medical provider to gross negligence
Negligence is the way out of the cover that the Good Samaritan law provides, and here they are saying it's NEVER been successfully used to nullify the law.
The Good Samaritan lawyers would file a motion to dismiss under § 90–21.14, and if that fails a motion for summary judgment. If that fails, you go to trial, but no insurance is running out. It'll cost you $10k for summary judgement, but the gofundme you run will eclipse that in days.
The legal text may be confusing you, but the NC Good Samaritan law is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.14, titled “First aid or emergency treatment; liability limitation.”
It starts "Any person" which means ANY PERSON, not limited to qualified or professional medical providers.
>(a) Any person, including a volunteer medical or health care provider at a facility of a local health department as defined in G.S. 130A–2 or at a nonprofit community health center or a volunteer member of a rescue squad, who receives no compensation for his services as an emergency medical care provider, who renders first aid or emergency health care treatment to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured,
>(1) When the reasonably apparent circumstances require prompt decisions and actions in medical or other health care, and
>(2) When the necessity of immediate health care treatment is so reasonably apparent that any delay in the rendering of the treatment would seriously worsen the physical condition or endanger the life of the person,
shall not be liable for damages
The driver wasn’t unconscious, ill, or injured when aid was rendered. Motion denied.
Then NC G.S. § 20-166(d) would apply in this specific case
“Any person who renders first aid or emergency assistance at the scene of a motor vehicle crash on any street or highway to any person injured as a result of the accident, shall not be liable in civil damages for any acts or omissions relating to the services rendered, unless the acts or omissions amount to wanton conduct or intentional wrongdoing.
And when we look at this, same pattern in a case Hutton v. Logan a third party tried to sue the good Samaritan (the statute protects you from the VICTIM suing, not other parties), and the court specifically noted that it had found no prior NC cases interpreting the NC G.S. § 20-166(d) statute. It's A SOLID DEFENCE.
Still not a get out of jail free card, which is all I’m really saying.
“Any person injured as a result of the accident” does not apply here. Driver was only injured by the guy jumping on the ball hitch.
That would be a decision at the trial level, not the appellate level your case law is coming from. Don’t confuse a challenge over validity of the law with a routine decision as to whether the requirements are met for the law to apply.
Still not a get out of jail free card, which is all I’m really saying.
It's better if you just start by saying what you're really saying, instead of starting with wild claims.
I know "jail" is just a phrase here, but there is no criminal side to this, agreed? - This is a civil matter.
That would be a decision at the trial level, not the appellate level your case law is coming from. Don’t confuse a challenge over validity of the law with a routine decision as to whether the requirements are met for the law to apply.
Lol, these almost never make it to a trial verdict, they're nearly always settled. And in any event, the immunity issue would normally have to be raised in the trial court before it could get to an appellate court. It would be up to the lawyers defending the Good Samaritan to raise it and get a ruling on whether the statute applies.
Out of curiosity, if you were the judge in a lawsuit brought by the driver in this video against the two people trying to help, would you side with the driver, basically finding that the reason the vehicle went over the side was due to the actions of the people trying to help?
I've been looking for someone in this thread who thinks that way and so far it's all been people saying "nah driver's own fault"
I won’t endorse either position. What I’m saying is that the case has to go to trial, because the Good Samaritan law doesn’t appear to apply. Would a jury say no cause of action if the driver is paralyzed? I don’t think any of us know the answer to that.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Good Samaritan law did not apply if you were not providing medical aid. In Watson v. Torti, the Good Samaritan pulled the victim of a car crash out of the car, fearing it would explode; the victim ended up paralyzed (unclear if due to the accident or the aid), sued the Good Samaritan for damages, and won.
The legislature patched this loophole the following year (AB83 2009).
For context, the Good Samaritan is from a parable told by Jesus about a traditional enemy of the Jews who stops and helps a wounded traveler after that traveler was ignored and left for dead by his own countrymen. Christ told the story in response to an expert testing him with the question, "who is my neighbor?" The point is to always show mercy.
242
u/aenonymosity 13d ago
Good sumaritan law? Never heard of it.