24/12 - Maryland Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 24 September Term, 2012 TransCare Maryland., Inc., et al. v. Bryson Murray, et al. Bell, C.J. Harrell Greene Adkins Barbera McDonald Wilner (retired, specially assigned) JJ. Opinion by McDonald, J. Filed: April 22, 2013
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, a man on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho is robbed, beaten, and left for dead. Two passers-by of significant social and religious status see the injured man, but choose to cross to the other side of the road. A third traveler of less repute, a Samaritan, comes to the man’s aid, takes him to an inn, tends to him through the night, and then pays the innkeeper the next morning to continue the man’s care. We do not know from the parable whether the fear of civil liability discouraged the first two passers-by from intervening. In modern-day Maryland, a State law known as the Good Samaritan Act seeks to remove that disincentive, particularly for individuals who have the knowledge and skills to provide useful medical assistance at an emergency, by granting those individuals immunity from liability should something go awry. In some instances that immunity extends to an entity when its personnel provide emergency aid. Another source of immunity – sovereign immunity – derives from the ancient tenet that “the King can do no wrong.” 1 Public agencies and employees, including first responders, have long enjoyed a broad qualified immunity from liability as an aspect of sovereign or governmental immunity. A State statute, popularly known as the Fire and Rescue Act, extends similarly broad immunity to fire companies, rescue companies, and their personnel for “any act or omission in the course of performing their duties.” These two statutes – the one potentially applicable to a broad class of actors but focused on emergency situations, the other applicable to a narrower class but broader in the scope of the immunity it confers – provide overlapping protection to some extent. This case 1 Katz v. WSSC, 284 Md. 503, 507, 397 A.2d 1027 (1979).
Page 1: TransCare Maryland, Inc. et al. v.
Page 5 and 6: paramedic employed by Petitioner Tr
Page 7 and 8: TransCare moved for summary judgmen
Page 9 and 10: • keep in mind the statutory cont
Page 11 and 12: (a) A person described in subsectio
Page 13 and 14: CJ §5-603(b)(3) - Text As TransCar
Page 15 and 16: time, the adjective “volunteer”
Page 17 and 18: 1976 bill, who told the Legislature
Page 19 and 20: encompassed the employees of a comp
Page 21 and 22: TransCare’s argument is contrary
Page 23 and 24: organization’s members or employe
Page 25 and 26: Under the common law, state and loc
Page 27 and 28: ordinary negligence. 32 In particul
Page 29 and 30: §5-639 (establishing immunity for
Page 31 and 32: out of such agreements are to be
Page 33 and 34: “any act or omission in the cours
Page 35: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL AP

24/12 - Maryland Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?