Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Good Samaritan law

 
Law Encyclopedia: Good Samaritan Doctrine
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

A principle of tort law that provides that a person who sees another individual in imminent and serious danger or peril cannot be charged with negligence if that first person attempts to aid or rescue the injured party, provided the attempt is not made recklessly.

The Good Samaritan doctrine is used by rescuers to avoid civil liability for injuries arising from their negligence. Its purpose is to encourage emergency assistance by removing the threat of liability for damage done by the assistance. However, the assistance must be reasonable; a rescuer cannot benefit from the Good Samaritan doctrine if the assistance is reckless or grossly negligent.

Three key elements support a successful invocation of the Good Samaritan doctrine: (1) the care rendered was performed as the result of the emergency, (2) the initial emergency or injury was not caused by the person invoking the defense, and (3) the emergency care was not given in a grossly negligent or reckless manner.

Assume that a person has slipped on ice and broken a vertebra. The victim is unconscious, the accident has occurred in a desolate area, and the weather is dangerously cold. A passerby finds the injured person and moves the person to warmth and safety, but in the process aggravates the spinal injury. In a civil suit by the victim seeking damages for the additional injury, the passerby may successfully defeat the claims under the Good Samaritan doctrine.

The Good Samaritan doctrine is also used as a defense by persons who act to prevent or contain property damage. Assume that a passerby notices a fire has started just outside a cabin in the wilderness. If the passerby breaks into the cabin to look for a fire extinguisher, the passerby will not be liable for damage resulting from the forced entry. However, if the passerby runs down the cabin with a bulldozer to extinguish the fire, this will probably be considered grossly negligent or reckless, and the Good Samaritan doctrine will not provide protection from a civil suit for damages to the cabin.

The line separating negligence from gross negligence or recklessness is often thin. Hardingham v. United Counseling Service of Bennington County, 672 A. 2d 480 (Vt. 1995), illustrates the negligent acts that the Good Samaritan doctrine protects. In this case, the plaintiff, David Hardingham, sued United Counseling Service (UCS) when he became blind after drinking windshield wiper fluid. Hardingham, a recovering alcoholic, was employed by UCS as an emergency services counselor. When Hardingham began drinking again, employees of UCS went to his apartment and discovered him in an inebriated condition. During their visit, they saw Hardingham drink windshield wiper fluid. They called the police, who took Hardingham to a hospital. At the hospital, none of the UCS workers informed medical authorities that Hardingham had drunk the dangerous fluid. Doctors did not learn until the next day that Hardingham had overdosed on methanol, a component of windshield wiper fluid, and Hardingham eventually lost his sight.

Hardingham never got a chance to present his case to a jury. The Chittenden Superior Court granted summary judgment to UCS, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support an allegation of gross negligence by the organization. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed this decision. According to the court, the actions of the defendants "probably saved plaintiff's life." Although the defendants may have been negligent in failing to disclose that Hardingham had swallowed enough methanol to threaten his life, "no reasonable person could conclude that defendants showed indifference to plaintiff or failed to exercise even a slight degree of care."

Justice John Dooley dissented, arguing that the case presented a question of fact for a jury to decide. The defendants "failed to tell the emergency room physician the most significant fact that wasn't obvious from plaintiff's condition — that plaintiff had consumed windshield wiper fluid." Dooley lamented that "the greatest difficulty plaintiff faces in this case is to persuade us to accept that ‘good samaritans' should ever be liable."

Section 324 of the Second Restatement of Torts describes the Good Samaritan doctrine in an inverse fashion. According to section 324, a person is subject to liability for physical harm resulting from the failure to exercise reasonable care if the failure increases the risk of harm, if the rescuer has a duty to render care, or if others are relying on the rescuer.

Many states are content to follow the Good Samaritan doctrine through their common law or through similar previous cases. Some states have general statutes mandating the doctrine. Utah, for example, has a Good Samaritan act, which provides in part that

[a] person who renders emergency care at or near the scene of, or during an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission by the person rendering the emergency care, unless the person is grossly negligent or caused the emergency. (Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-22).

Some states have enacted statutes that protect specific emergency care or assistance. Indiana, for example, protects the emergency care of veterinarians (Ind. Code § 15-5-1.1-31). Alabama provides immunity to those who assist or advise in the mitigation of the effects of the discharge of hazardous materials (Ala. Code § 6-5-332.1). Some states also provide protection to those participating in the cleanup of oil spills. In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act (Pub. L. No. 101-380, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 2701-2761 [1994]), which gave immunity from liability to persons who participate in oil cleanup efforts. Like any Good Samaritan law, the statute does not protect a person who is grossly negligent or reckless.

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Veterinary Dictionary: good samaritan law
Top

A law that provides protection against claims of malpractice for medical practitioners who render emergency care at the scene of an accident except when gross negligence or willful misconduct can be proved. Most states in the USA have passed such laws; all the laws cover doctors, and about half the laws cover nurses. It would be beneficial if similar laws were enacted to protect veterinarians and their patients.

Wikipedia: Good Samaritan law
Top
A statue by François-Léon Sicard representing the Good Samaritan's rescue of an injured traveler

Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia[2]. In many countries that use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.

Good Samaritan laws take their name from a story told by Jesus as contained in Luke 10:25-37, which recounts the aid given by a traveler to a person in need who had been beaten and robbed by bandits.

Contents

In the United States

The details of good Samaritan laws/acts in various jurisdictions vary, including who is protected from liability and in what circumstances.[3] Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, in those cases only protecting trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses.[4] In some cases, laypersons are only protected when rendering aid in narrow circumstances, such as during a declared public health emergency.

Common features

In some jurisdictions, unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or the "good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim. Good Samaritan statutes in the states of Minnesota and Vermont do require a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a person in need.[5] This assistance may be to call 9-1-1. Violation of the duty-to-assist subdivision is a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota and may warrant a fine of up to $100 in Vermont. At least five other states, including California and Nevada, have seriously considered adding duty-to-assist subdivisions to their good Samaritan statutes.[6] New York's law provides for immunity for those who assist in an emergency.[7]

Good Samaritan provisions are not universal in application. The legal principle of imminent peril may also apply.[8] In the absence of imminent peril, the actions of a rescuer may be perceived by the courts to be reckless and not worthy of protection. To illustrate, a motor vehicle collision occurs, but there is no fire, no immediate life threat from injuries and no danger of a second collision. If a 'good Samaritan' elects to 'rescue' the victim from the wreckage, causing paralysis or some other injury, a court may rule that good Samaritan laws do not apply because the victim was not in imminent peril and hold the actions of the rescuer as 'reckless' and unnecessary.[9]

Any first aid provided must not be in exchange for any reward or financial compensation. As a result, medical professionals are typically not protected by good Samaritan laws when performing first aid in connection with their employment.[10] Certain states make specific provisions for those trained medical professionals acting as volunteers and for members of volunteer rescue squads acting without expectation of financial compensation.[11]

If a responder begins rendering aid, he must not leave the scene until it is necessary to call for needed medical assistance, a rescuer of equal or higher ability takes over, or continuing to give aid is unsafe.[12] The responder is not legally liable for the death, disfigurement or disability of the victim as long as the responder acted rationally, in good faith and in accordance with their level of training.[13]

Consent

The responder must not commit assault or battery by giving aid to a patient without consent of the patient (or of the patient's legal guardian when the patient is a minor) except in those cases where obtaining the consent of the patient or guardian is not possible.

Implied consent

Consent may be implied if the patient is unconscious, delusional, intoxicated or deemed mentally unfit to make decisions regarding their safety or if the responder has a reasonable belief that this was as such; courts tend to be very forgiving in adjudicating this, under the legal fiction that "peril invites rescue" (as in the rescue doctrine).[14] The test in most jurisdictions is that of the 'average, reasonable person'. To illustrate, would the average, reasonable person in any of the states described above consent to receiving assistance in these circumstances if he or she were able to make his or her own decision?

Consent may also be implied if the legal parent or guardian is not immediately reachable and the patient is not considered an adult.

Parental consent

If the victim is a minor, consent must come from a parent or guardian. However, if the legal parent or guardian is absent, unconscious, delusional or intoxicated, consent is implied. A responder is not required to withhold life-saving treatment (e.g., CPR or the Heimlich maneuver) from a minor if the parent/guardian will not consent. The parent/guardian is then considered neglecting, and consent for treatment is implied. Special circumstances may exist if child abuse is suspected.[15]

Laws for first responders only

In some jurisdictions, good Samaritan laws only protect those who have completed basic first aid training and are certified by health organizations, such as the American Heart Association, American Red Cross, St. John Ambulance or American Safety and Health Institute, provided that they have acted within the scope of their training.[16] In these jurisdictions, a person that is neither trained in first aid nor certified, and who performs first aid incorrectly, can still be held legally liable for errors made. In other jurisdictions, any rescuer is protected from liability, so long as the responder acted rationally.

In Canada

In Canada, good Samaritan acts are a provincial power. Each province has its own act, such as Ontario[17] and British Columbia's[18] respective good Samaritan acts; Alberta's Emergency Medical Aid Act;[19] and Nova Scotia's Volunteer Services Act[20] Only in Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction, does a person have a general duty to respond, as written in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.[21] In British Columbia, persons have a duty to respond only where a child is endangered.

An example of a typical Canadian law is provided here, from Ontario's Good Samaritan Act, 2001, section 2:

Protection from liability 2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[22]

Comparison with duty to rescue

Good Samaritan laws may be confused with the duty to rescue, as described above. U.S. and Canadian approaches to this issue differ. Under the common law, good Samaritan laws provide a defence against torts arising from the attempted rescue. Such laws do not constitute a duty to rescue, such as exists in some civil law countries,[23] and in the common law under certain circumstances. However, the duty to rescue where it exists may itself imply a shield from liability; for example, under the German law of "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (neglect of duty to provide assistance), a citizen is obliged to provide first aid when necessary and is immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith turns out to be harmful. In Canada, all provinces with the exception of Quebec operate on the basis of English Common Law. Quebec operates a civil law system, based in part on the Napoleonic Code, and the principle of duty to rescue does apply.[24]

To illustrate a variation in the concept of duty to rescue, in the Canadian province of Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act provides all workers with the right to refuse to perform unsafe work. There are, however, specific exceptions to this right. When the "life, health or safety of another person is at risk," then specific groups, including "police officers, firefighters, or employees of a hospital, clinic or other type of medical worker (including EMS)" are specifically excluded from the right to refuse unsafe work.[25]

In popular culture

A good Samaritan law was featured in the May 1998 series finale of the popular NBC situation comedy Seinfeld, in which the show's four main characters were all prosecuted and sentenced to one year in jail for making fun of (rather than helping) an overweight man who was getting robbed at gunpoint.[26] In reality, while Massachusetts (where the fictional crime was committed) does have a law requiring passersby to report a crime in progress, the most stringent punishment the characters could have suffered under those circumstances would have been a $500–$2500 fine (assuming they were prosecuted under state law); in addition, the phrase "good Samaritan law," when used in Massachusetts, refers only to the civil law definition and does not have any actual relevance to the law under which Jerry Seinfeld and his friends were prosecuted (which would be considered a duty to rescue).[27]

See also

References and notes

  1. ^ "Canadian Law website 1". http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/goodsamaritan.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-16. 
  2. ^ Gulam H, Devereaux J (2007). "A brief primer on Good Samaritan Law for health care professionals". Aust Health Rev (31): 478–482. http://www.aushealthreview.com.au/publications/articles/issues/ahr_31_3_0807/ahr_31_3_478.asp. 
  3. ^ The laws include: Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code § 5-603; Virginia Code § 8.01-225.
  4. ^ "Good Samaritan Statutes (Medi-smart website)". http://www.medi-smart.com/gslaw.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-17. 
  5. ^ "Vermont Good Samaritan Law". http://www.cprinstructor.com/VT-GS.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-17. 
  6. ^ Lyons, Donna (1999-03-01). "Help Your Neighbor—It’s the Law". State Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/399HELP.HTM. Retrieved 2008-10-20. 
  7. ^ N.Y. Public Health L. §§ 3000-a, 3000-b, 3013 (McKinney 2000); see also Assembly website database fo law. Accessed April 8, 2009.
  8. ^ "What is the Good Samaritan Law? (essortment website)". http://www.essortment.com/all/goodsamaritanl_redg.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-16. 
  9. ^ "Good samaritan law may not apply (USA Today)". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-23-samaritan-accident_N.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-17. 
  10. ^ "RCW 4.24.300 Immunity from liability for certain types of medical care (Washington State Legislature website)". http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=4.24.300. Retrieved 2008-10-17. 
  11. ^ "Colorado Good Samaritan Law". http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-17. 
  12. ^ This can be as simple as a lack of adequate protection against potential diseases, such as vinyl, latex, or nitrile gloves to protect against blood-borne pathogens. A responder is never legally compelled to put himself or herself in danger to aid another person.
  13. ^ Rolfsen ML (2007). "Medical care provided during a disaster should be immune from liability or criminal prosecution". The Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society : official organ of the Louisiana State Medical Society 159 (4): 224–5, 227–9. PMID 17987961. 
  14. ^ "Implied Consent (Lawdictionary.com website)". http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=904&bold=. Retrieved 2008-10-17. 
  15. ^ Foltin GL, Lucky C, Portelli I, et al. (June 2008). "Overcoming legal obstacles involving the voluntary care of children who are separated from their legal guardians during a disaster". Pediatric emergency care 24 (6): 392–8. doi:10.1097/PEC.0b013e318178c05d. PMID 18562886. 
  16. ^ "Good Samaritan/Fireman's Rule (Connecticut State Legislature website)". http://www.cga.ct.gov/lrc/recommendations/GoodSamaritanFiremansRuleFinalRpt.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-17. 
  17. ^ "Good Samaritan Act, S.O., 2001 (Ontario E-laws website)". http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d9dc707e-281a-473f-af21-6a407eb94c43/1/frame/?search=browseStatutes&context=. Retrieved 2008-10-10. 
  18. ^ "Good Samaritan Act [RSBC 1996 CHAPTER 172 (British Columbia Queen's Printer website)]". http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/G/96172_01.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-10. 
  19. ^ "Emergency Medical Aid Act (Alberta Queen's Printer website". http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/E07.CFM. Retrieved 2008-10-10. 
  20. ^ "Volunteer Services Act 'Good Samaritan' RSNS 1989 (amend. 1992) (Nova Scotia Legislature website)". http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/volnteer.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-10. 
  21. ^ "Good Samaritan Law from The Canadian Association of Food Banks". Canadian Association of Food Banks (via Internet Archive). http://web.archive.org/web/20071217050919/http://www.cafb-acba.ca/english/GetInvolved-GoodSamaritanLaw.html. Retrieved 2008-10-20. 
  22. ^ "Good Samaritan Act, 2001 ©Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2005". http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/2001c.2/20051114/whole.html. Retrieved December 26, 2005. 
  23. ^ Higuchi N (March 2008). "[Good Samaritan Act and physicians' duty to rescue]" (in Japanese). Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi 64 (3): 382–4. PMID 18434681. http://joi.jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.JSTAGE/jjrt/64.382?from=PubMed. 
  24. ^ "Canadian Law website 2". http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/goodsamaritan.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-16. 
  25. ^ "Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. (1990) (Ontario E-laws website)". http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/1b20e47b-33e4-49e7-a525-b268f053d236/4/frame/?search=browseStatutes&context=. Retrieved 2008-10-10. 
  26. ^ James, Caryn (1998-05-15). "'Seinfeld' Goes Out in Self-Referential Style". New York Times. pp. B1. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/15/arts/television-review-seinfeld-goes-out-in-self-referential-style.html. Retrieved 2008-10-20. 
  27. ^ "Footnote TV's Mirror Law analysis of the Seinfeld finale and Massachusetts' Good Samaritan Law". http://www.footnotetv.com/ftvseinfeldindex.html#goodsamaritan. Retrieved August 12, 2009. 

External links


 
 

 

Copyrights:

Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Veterinary Dictionary. Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary 3rd Edition. Copyright © 2007 by D.C. Blood, V.P. Studdert and C.C. Gay, Elsevier. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Good Samaritan law" Read more