Decisions like this are very concerning. As a human I feel compelled to aid someone in distress from an accident. Having to think twice before rendering assistance in a life threatening situation is not a decision I would like to make.

Down on this side of the globe we don't have a "Good Samaritan" law as such. Our laws are based (like Canada) on English common law but after a couple of ridiculous lawsuits (a burglar sued a home owner for injuries suffered while robbing their house) the Commonwealth and State government got together and came up with the Civil Liabilities Act (the name varies from state to state). Or as it has been nick named by some the "common sense law" (I know, I know, common sense and law in the same sentence is an oxymoron). At the core of the legislation is the concept that all activities have inherent risks that people have to accept when undertaking certain activities and those risks don't have to be obvious:
Section 5F.4
Meaning of “obvious risk”

(1) For the purposes of this Division, an obvious risk to a person who suffers harm is a risk that, in the circumstances, would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of that person.

(2) Obvious risks include risks that are patent or a matter of common knowledge.

(3) A risk of something occurring can be an obvious risk even though it has a low probability of occurring.

(4) A risk can be an obvious risk even if the risk (or a condition or circumstance that gives rise to the risk) is not prominent, conspicuous or physically observable.

From a hiking perspective the Civil Liabilities Act has been very useful as it significantly limits the liability of walk leaders and their clubs as long as they follow a few simple steps. To the best of my knowledge the few cases where legal action has been taken against leaders/clubs (which actually means against the insurance companies) the action has failed.

Interstingly, when I did my first aid certificate we were advised that if we did render assistance we are required to continue to provide assistance until a rescue/paramedic arrived to take over patient care. If we failed to provide continuing care then we are negligent. Someone mentioned before about if someone refuses treatment. We down here are in a similar boat, if the patient refuses care then we cannot proceed. The only exclusion is if the person is unconscious. Our first aid trainer joked that legally we were better off if the patient was unconscious.

Interseting point by one the dissenting judges:
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote for the dissenters.
I agree with this judge it just doesn't make sense.

I say again I would not like to have to stop and think will I get sued for helping, very scary.

Cheers,
Michael.