Grunt Doc has a good rundown in More on the California Good Samaritan debacle. The decision was that a good Samaritan ended up being held liable for pulling a victim out of a car wreck despite a law that seems to say they should have been protected.
The Doc describes just how convoluted the logic supporting the majority decision really was.
The legislature wrote what it meant, in plain language. The California Supreme Court says the plain language isn’t correct, that their intent was clearly different than that written.
This case makes another good example of the courts inventing rationalizations for decisions that go counter to the plain text of the law and common sense. It is like what Mr. Brown is trying to do to overturn proposition 8 to amend the constitution by asserting it is unconstitutional.
Lawfare can be ugly.