The traditional position in our system has been a reluctance to hold a rescuer to account, even in some circumstance where he has been somewhat careless, above and beyond the original wrongdoer. The rescuer's actions have to amount to something which 'breaks the chain of causation' - in other words, a consequence which would not have naturally occurred as a result of the original action (the crash in this instance). But this apparently simple definition has, typically, been bound up by new restrictions and tests and whatnot.
It does appear though that a rescuer has to something more than slightly foolish to be responsible, such as new or greater injury that wouldn't have happened anyway.
If it was tidied up, I think that this position is good. No liability normally, liability if you cause further injury (that would not have happened in any event, or in the course of the most careful and professional rescue) as a result.
It's another example of the dangerous slope towards 'blame and claim' culture, really. At least most reasonable judges now seem to be taking a dim view of claims like that.
And, just a further note - it is not unknown for an injured party to attempt to sue someone for failing to be a 'Good Samaritan', which English law doesn't recognise .
In my opinion, both situations are unacceptable, unless it involves, as said (often), further, forseeable, unreasonable injury.
Last edited by SW01; 12-22-2008 at 02:39 AM.