civil liability of good samaritans and volunteers - Law Reform ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

statutes go so far as to extend protection to the simple act of volunteering. TheCommission observes that Good Samaritan statutes may be seen as anattempt to eliminate the perceived inadequacies of the common law rule underwhich a Good Samaritan or volunteer who acts voluntarily for the benefit ofsociety, by assisting an injured person or providing services to another, can beheld liable for failing to exercise reasonable care.4.14 The Commission emphasises that any Good Samaritan legislationproposed by the Commission must be clear. It must also offer a coherent andcomprehensive guide to Good Samaritans, voluntary rescuers and voluntaryservice providers as to their legal position.4.15 In the subsequent sections, the Commission examines the legislationthat applies to Good Samaritans and volunteers in other States. Drawing ontheir experience, the Commission identifies the type of legislation that is suitedto Ireland. The Commission notes at this stage that, where full immunity is notinvolved, these statutes often state that a Good Samaritan or volunteer is notrequired to comply with the normal standard of negligence but is only to be heldliable where gross negligence is established. The Commission considerswhether this standard should be applied to Good Samaritans, volunteers andvolunteer organisations in Ireland or whether the current standard of ordinarynegligence is more appropriate. An underlying objective in this is to strike anacceptable balance between the need to afford protection to Good Samaritansand volunteers and an injured person‟s legitimate interest to seek redress forinjury or harm.(2) Good Samaritan Legislation in other Jurisdictions(a)Introduction4.16 In this section, the Commission examines the scope of GoodSamaritan statutes in other comparable common law jurisdictions to determinetheir relevance to the proposed legislation in this State. The Commissionobserves that most common law jurisdictions have adopted either GoodSamaritan or volunteer legislation, if not both. The Commission notes,however, that there is no generally accepted formula for the creation of suchlegislation and that legislation differs greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.(b)United States4.17 Every State in the United States has enacted some form of GoodSamaritan legislation. 17 Much of this legislation protects from litigation to thosewho assist in emergencies. This protection is usually predicated on the17See Eric A. Brandt, Comment: Good Samaritan Laws – The Legal Placebo: ACurrent Analysis 17 Akron L. Rev. 3030-303 (1983) for an overview.90
condition that the Good Samaritan acts in good faith and without grossnegligence. Furthermore, the Good Samaritan must not have received anythingfor his or her efforts or participated with the expectation of receiving any suchbenefit. It is beyond the scope of this Report to examine each of the relevantstatutes so the Commission has singled out the more salient features.4.18 In 1959, California was the first State in the United States to enactGood Samaritan legislation. 18 One by one the other States and the District ofColumbia enacted similar legislation. While many statutes are similar, otherscarry the distinctive scars of the particular case or incident which led to theirenactment. Bearing this in mind, the Commission discusses the variousprotections on offer in the United States. In spite of differences regarding, forinstance, the category of person to which the protection applies or the type ofconduct which falls within its remit, the Commission discerns a common threadthroughout: the goal of protecting those who provide emergency medical careand assistance, in good faith and without remuneration.4.19 The Commission points first to the category or categories of personafforded protection by the statute. While some statutes protect narrow classesof person, others protect much broader classes. 19 For instance, some Stateshave chosen to protect only those individuals who are licensed or certified in themedical field. In this regard, the Massachusetts 20 Massachusetts General Laws2007and Michigan 21 statutes have a very narrow remit, affording protection tophysicians, physicians‟ assistants and registered licensed nurses. TheOklahoma statute is also narrow to the extent that it protects licensed healthcare professionals alone. 22 By contrast, the Commission notes that otherStates provide protection to larger classes of person. The Kansas statute, forinstance, protects any person licensed to practice in any branch of the healingarts. 23 Broader again is the Missouri statute, 24 which protects licensedphysicians and surgeons, registered or licensed nurses, and any person trained181920212223241959 Cal. Stat. ch. 1507. This is currently codified as Cal & Bus Prof Code §2395.For a discussion of the variations in this regard see Veilleux Annotation,Construction and Application of "Good Samaritan" Statutes, 68 A.L.R. 4th 294.Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, 12B.Mich. Comp. Laws 691.1501.59 Okl St Ann § 518 (2006).Kan Stat Ann § 65-2891 (e).Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.037.91
Page 1:
ReportCivil liabilityof goodsamarit
Page 4 and 5:
LAW REFORM COMMISSION‟S ROLEThe L
Page 6 and 7:
LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFFDirector o
Page 8 and 9:
CONTACT DETAILSFurther information
Page 10 and 11:
TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 1A Re
Page 12 and 13:
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Page 14 and 15:
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision
Page 17 and 18:
TABLE OF CASESAlexandrou v Oxford [
Page 19 and 20:
Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36 EngKi
Page 21 and 22:
INTRODUCTIONARequest by the Attorne
Page 23:
extent to which current law in Irel
Page 26 and 27:
who may have had a “reasonable ex
Page 28 and 29:
1.10 The 2006 Report of the Nationa
Page 30 and 31:
Work had also been done on planning
Page 32 and 33:
1.21 The Irish Government‟s 2000
Page 34 and 35:
ecommendations to the Government on
Page 36 and 37:
that the enactment of legislation s
Page 38 and 39:
circumstances in which a duty to in
Page 40 and 41:
Russia, Switzerland and a number of
Page 42 and 43:
inconvenience to the would-be-rescu
Page 44 and 45:
2.18 Lord Atkin then went on to exp
Page 46 and 47:
intervene and rescue. 39 This has b
Page 48 and 49:
a duty to control the conduct of ot
Page 50 and 51:
voluntarily assumed responsibility
Page 52 and 53:
competence and ability to treat the
Page 54 and 55:
property in a public place and a ve
Page 56 and 57:
is an occupational first-aider pres
Page 58 and 59:
human being whose life is in peril
Page 60 and 61: without an option to avoid being su
Page 62 and 63: (d)Economic Arguments2.72 In Stovin
Page 64 and 65: (g)Indeterminate Number of ClaimsIn
Page 66 and 67: there is no greater legal basis for
Page 69 and 70: 3CHAPTER 3DUTY OF CARE AND STANDARD
Page 71 and 72: whereby the courts may, as a matter
Page 73 and 74: conduct in the future. 18 In this w
Page 75 and 76: “Any person who intervenes volunt
Page 77 and 78: leaves the victim in a worse positi
Page 79 and 80: Samaritan could be held liable for
Page 81 and 82: 3.36 It must also be borne in mind
Page 83 and 84: permissible in the case of ordinary
Page 85 and 86: scenarios where there is a lack of
Page 87 and 88: Commission observes that a finding
Page 89 and 90: In this regard, it is noted that th
Page 91 and 92: escuer, a quality service is provid
Page 93 and 94: 3.74 Where the undertaking is a pro
Page 95 and 96: volunteer fails to turn up, it is v
Page 97 and 98: equivalent services. Furthermore, t
Page 99 and 100: precedent for future claims against
Page 101 and 102: would seem to imply that the standa
Page 103 and 104: that it was unlikely that liability
Page 105 and 106: 4CHAPTER 4THE CONTENTS OF THE GOOD
Page 107 and 108: often important to distinguish care
Page 109: made those decisions, transfers to
Page 113 and 114: defined “render” as “[t]o giv
Page 115 and 116: 4.24 The Commission notes that some
Page 117 and 118: equirement of rendering emergency c
Page 119 and 120: statutes in the United States, whil
Page 121 and 122: property is not included. To the ex
Page 123 and 124: 4.41 In the Australian Capital Terr
Page 125 and 126: surgical aid in case of urgent need
Page 127 and 128: (2) General scope of legislation4.5
Page 129 and 130: heart action or circulation of bloo
Page 131 and 132: emergency contains in section 11 of
Page 133 and 134: precise definition of “good faith
Page 135 and 136: 4.82 In the Consultation Paper 135
Page 137 and 138: the organisation‟s work in determ
Page 139 and 140: 5CHAPTER 5SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Page 141 and 142: APPENDIXDRAFT CIVIL LIABILITY (GOOD
Page 143 and 144: DRAFT CIVIL LIABILITY (GOOD SAMARIT
Page 145 and 146: (e) The individual was capable of a
Page 147: Effect on common law and statutory
show all

civil liability of good samaritans and volunteers - Law Reform ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?