Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T22:13:39.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Good Samaritan” Statutes: Do They Protect the Emergency Care Provider?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Miles J. Zaremski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1959, California became the first state to enact legislation protecting good Samaritans from tort liability under certain circumstances. While previously a good samaritan giving aid in an emergency could be held liable only if he acted unreasonably, there was no legislative mandate to affirmatively discourage an injured party from bringing suit against the good samaritan. Although few such cases can be documented, the absence of legislative protection was thought to work a serious detriment to the prompt rendition of aid in emergency conditions, since some medical practitioners might refrain from giving emergency aid for fear of being subjected to legal action. In response to this perceived situation, California enacted its legislation to encourage the giving of emergency aid and to “sufficiently allay [the good samaritan's] fears of legal action:”

Currently, good samaritan statutes exist in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. These statutes range from the very broad to the very specific, and each is supposedly designed to protect the good samaritan emergency care provider from frivolous litigation. However, developments in recent years have caused commentators to question whether the central purpose behind these statutes—to discourage legal action—has actually been achieved.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Spring 1979 , pp. 5 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Mr. Zaremski is associated with the law firm of Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon in Chicago and has lectured extensively and authored numerous articles in the medicolegal and health care fields. The article is excerpted from the author's presentation at the ABA Annual Meeting, Section on Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law, Committee on Medicine & Law, August 1978, in New York City. The author wishes to recognize the assistance of Mr. Michael Broham, a law student at Northwestern University School of Law, in the preparation of the paper.

References

Footnotes

1. See Colby v. Schwartz. 144 Cal. Rptr. 624, 627-28 (1978). Also see Comment, First Aid to Passengers: Good Somaritan Statutes and Contractual Releases from Liability, 31 SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL 695 (1977).Google Scholar

2. Thirty states have statutes that protect “any person” who renders emergency assistance: AK, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, IA, ME, MD, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV, WY.

3. Twenty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have statutes that protect only medical or licensed personnel: AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, IL, KA, KY, LA, MA, MI, MO, MS, NE, NY, ND, OR, PA, RI, VT, VI, WI.

4. E.g., the stated purpose of the Alaska good samaritan statute is to “induce voluntary rescue by removing the fear of potential liability which acts as an impediment lo such rescue.” Alas. Stat. $09.65.090(Supp.1976).

5. See, e.g., Scanlon, , The Malpractice Aspects of Emergency Care by Non Physicians, 12 GONZAGA L. REV. 676(1977).Google Scholar

6. The only state appellate cases with discussions on the good samaritan statutes are: Colby v. Schwartz, 144 Cal.Rptr. 624(1978): Guerrero v. Copper Queen Hospital, 112 Ariz. 104, 537 P.2d 1329(1975); Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company, 24 Ariz.App. 233,537 P.2d 618(1975): Markman v. Kotler, 52 A.D.2d 579, 382 N.Y.S.2d 522 (1976); Dreibelbis v. Bennett, 319 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1974); Lee v. State, 490P.2d 1206 (Alas. 1971); Dahl v.Turner, 80N.M.564, 458P.2d 816(1969).

564, 458P.2d 816(1969).

7. N.M. STAT. ANN. $12-25-4(1976)(defines “emergency” with the vague phrase “an unexpected occurrence involving injury or illness”).

8. Dahl v. Turner, 80N.M. 564.458 P.2d 816,824(1969).

9. States and territories that define emergency care include: AK, CT, HI, IL, ID, LA, ME, MA, MI, MS, NH, NY, NC, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, VT, VI, VA, WA.

10. CT, LA, RI, VI, WA.

11. AK, HI, ID, MA, MI.

12. NH, SC, VT.

13. S.D.CODE $20-9-4.1 (1970).

14. The states and territories with a provision requiring the good samaritan to act gratuitously are: AL (no definition); AZ (no definition); AR (no definition); CO; CT; DE; FL (no definition); KY; LA (no definition); ME; MD (no definition); MA; NE (no definition); NV (no definition); NH; NM; NY; OH; OK; OR; RI; SC (no definition); TN; TX; VT; VI; VA; WA; WV; WY.

15. Statutes in the nineteen following states mandate such a requirement: CO, DE, HI, IL, IN, KY, ME, NH, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WY. Two states, Ohio and Virginia, extend the protection of their good samaritan statute to salaried paramedics.

16. CT, MA, NY, RI, VT, VI.

17. Colby v. Schwartz, 144 Cal.Rptr. 624 (1978).

18. Lee v.State, 490P.2d 1206, 1208-09 (Alaska 1971).

19. These are: AZ: AR (no definition); CA; DE (no definition); FL; GA (no definition); HI (no definition); ID; IA (no definition); KS; KY; LA; ME; MI (no definition); MN; MO (no definition); NE (no definition); NV (no definition); NH (no definition); NJ (no definition); NM; NY; NC; ND (no definition); OH; OK (no definition); PA (no definition); SC (no definition); SD; TN (no definition); UT (no definition); WA: WV (no definition); WI; WY (no definition).

20. Guerrero v. Copper Queen Hospital, 112 Ariz. 104, 537P.2d 1329(1975).

21. Guerrero, 537P.2d at 1331. ARIZ REV. STAT. $52-1471 attempts to define “scene.” but does so with the highly ambiguous “at the public gathering or at the scene of an emergency.”

22. Idaho's good samaritan statute. Idaho Code $5-330(Supp. 1976), is a model statute in this regard: immunity ceases “upon delivery of the injured person to either a generally recognized hospital… or upon delivery of said injured person or persons into custody of an ambulance attendant.”

23. Louisiana and Maine.

24. FL, KY, MN, NY, OH, WA, WI.

25. AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KA, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, NE, NH, NJ, NM, ND, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV, WI, WY. The Alaskan statute provides a good faith requirement only for paramedics.

26. E.g., Maryland's good samaritan statute requires a good samaritan to act only as a reasonably prudent individual would under the circumstances. MD. ANN. CODE, art. 43 $132(Supp. 1977).

27. AL, AK(for paramedics only); AR, LA, MA, NH (for paramedics only): NJ, OK, SD, UT, VA, WV, WI, WY.

28. FL, MN, MS, ND.

29. ID, NV, NW, TN, NY.

30. CT, DE, HI, IL, IN, KA, MI, NH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX, WA, WV.

31. FL, KA, ME, MA, OK, VT.

32. UTAH-CODE ANN., $58-12-23 (1974).

33. MASS. ANN. LAWS; Ch. 112$12F (Michie/Law Co-op 1975).

34. WASH. REV. CODE ANN., $18.71.220 (Supp. 1976).

35. See, e.g., Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92(1914).

36. These include: AK, CA, HI, ID, IL, IN, LA, ME, MA, MI, NV, OH, OK, RI, TN, VT, WA.

37. ILL. ANN. STAT., Ch. 111 1/2$86.4 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1974).

38. CAL. BUS.& PROF. CODE $ 1482(West Supp. 1976).

39. CAL. BUS.& PROF. CODE $ 1483 (West Supp. 1976).

40. MASS. ANN. LAWS Ch. 112 $ 12V (Michie/Law Co-op 1977).

41. MASS. ANN. LAWS Ch. 111C $ 13 (Michie/Law Co-op 1977).

42. IDAHO CODE $39-131 (Supp. 1976).