You are 100% right, sort of ! They are alleging that the aid she rendered was negligent and "not to the best of her ability" (i.e. not with reasonable care) in that she knew or should have known that you don't move an injured person who might have a cervical or lumbar injury that could worsen, and indeed, result in paralysis. Right or wrong that law says that if you choose NOT to act you cannot be sued but if you DO act then you have a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances so as not to proximately cause or contribute to cause, injury or damage. .
If the car was on fire that does not change the fact that the women was not able to get out of the car. She must have either been trapped or paralyzed because most people I know don't like sitting in cars that are on fire. So what can happen? The fire can give her severe and even fatal burns, the fire can cause a severe or fatal explosion or the fire can burn out. Chances are she is either trapped or paralyzed. If she is trapped than you cannot get her out unless you are the amazing hulk. What needs to be understood are the chances of negative affects when it comes to each scenario being played out. I wish I could go deeper into the statistics but I really don't know what percent of cars on fire burn all the way through and what percent of cars on fire explode. Also I would need to know the percent of people who have been further injured by people moving them when they show signs of being paralyzed. There needs to be two statistical percentages known for a person to rescue a person from a car crash. First if a person is in a burning car there needs to be a high statistical chance of that burning car to kill the person sitting in it. This high percentage of death means that further spinal injuries by moving the person from the car is worth it because of their impending and undeniable death in the future. If however burning cars only burn all the way through or explode one out of fifty times than I would by all means leave the person in the car. Secondly we need to know the statistical chances of people receiving further spinal injuries when unprofessional medical service is given. If the percentages of added spinal injuries is high when people move spinal injured victims than the victim should not be moved. The contrary if the percentages are the opposite. Sadly the question cannot be fully answered by the moral spirit. The question can only accurately be answered by figuring out which scenario is worse.
no good deed goes unpunished takes all types, sane and crazy ... i think it's called the "spice of life"