24/12 - Maryland Courts

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).