13.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

most statutes grant immunity for acts <strong>of</strong> ordinary negligence 81 while excludingacts <strong>of</strong> gross negligence or wilful or wanton misconduct. 824.31 The Rhode Isl<strong>and</strong> 83 case <strong>of</strong> Boccasile et al v Cajun Music Ltd 84illustrates the effect <strong>of</strong> a Good Samaritan statute. The deceased was attendinga music festival <strong>and</strong> suffered a severe allergic reaction. The defendants were adoctor, a nurse <strong>and</strong> a physician‟s assistant, who had volunteered as first aidersat the music festival. The doctor <strong>and</strong> other members <strong>of</strong> the first-aid crewattended Mr. Boccasile while the nurse remained at the first-aid tent. As Mr.Boccasile could not be moved, the doctor stayed with him while the crewreturned to the first-aid tent to retrieve a single-dose adrenaline injector <strong>and</strong> toring an ambulance. After the doctor administered the drug to him, Mr. Boccasilecomplained that he felt worse. As there was no other injector the doctor tried toadminister a second dose, at which point Mr. Boccasile fell unconscious. Thedoctor began mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, while the physician‟s assistantadministered chest compressions. An ambulance arrived <strong>and</strong> the physician‟sassistant accompanied Mr. Boccasile to the hospital. Mr. Boccasile neverregained consciousness <strong>and</strong> the defendants were sued for his death. Theplaintiff asserted that when the defendants responded to the emergency, theyfailed to bring along the necessary equipment <strong>and</strong> to administer the medicationin a timely manner. In their defence, the defendants claimed that they wereprotected by the Rhode Isl<strong>and</strong> Good Samaritan legislation, which set a grossnegligence test for <strong>liability</strong>. While the court appears to have agreed with thedefendants, the Commission notes that the determinative factor <strong>of</strong> the case wasthe fact that the plaintiff had failed to submit sufficient evidence as to theappropriate st<strong>and</strong>ard <strong>of</strong> care.(c)Australia4.32 The Commission notes that recent Australian governments haveundertaken major reforms in the area <strong>of</strong> tort <strong>and</strong>, in particular, the law <strong>of</strong>negligence. Most <strong>of</strong> the parliaments <strong>of</strong> the different States <strong>and</strong> territories haveintroduced provisions designed to modify the law <strong>of</strong> negligence as it applies toboth Good Samaritans <strong>and</strong> <strong>volunteers</strong>. The Commission examines, in thissection, the legislative provisions relating to Good Samaritans. As with the81828384Conn Gen Stat Ann § 52-557B (2007).Del Code Ann tit. 16 § 6801(a); Ind Code Ann § 34-30-12-1 (b).R.I. Gen. <strong>Law</strong>s 9-1-27.1.694 A2d 686, 1997 RI Lexis 153 (SC Rhode Isl<strong>and</strong>). The Commission notes thatthis case may be equally applied to voluntary rescuers <strong>and</strong> possibly voluntaryservice providers.98

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!