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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance”. This imposes anobligation on all persons to render aid if it can be accomplished without seriousrisk to that person or a third person or if there is no other valid reason for notrendering it. Aid can be rendered personally by giving necessary andimmediate physical assistance or by calling for assistance.(b) United States 972.60 Chapter 604A.01, subdivision 1, of the Revised Minnesota Statutes2007, which imposes an affirmative duty to assist in an emergency (at thescene of an emergency), is an exception to the general rule that there is no dutyto intervene. Minnesota has thus created a statutory duty to render assistanceat the scene of an emergency where a person knows that another person isexposed to or has suffered grave physical harm. He or she must only renderreasonable assistance if they can do so without danger or peril to themselves orothers. A person who violates this rule will be guilty of a petty misdemeanour.The meaning of “reasonable assistance” and the immunity associated with thestatutory duty was challenged in Swenson v Waseca Mutual Insurance Co..98The interpretation of the term “reasonable assistance”, the case and its findingswill be discussed further in Chapter 3.(c)Australia2.61 The Commission notes that in Australia, there are certain situationsin which a duty is imposed on a public authority to perform particular functions.The courts have based this duty on the general reliance which exists on the partof those at risk of injury or damage if certain statutory functions are negligentlydischarged. 99(2) Consideration of a general duty to intervene2.62 In the Consultation Paper, the Commission recommended that thereshould be no reform of the law to impose a duty on citizens in general, or anyparticular group of citizens, to intervene for the purpose of assisting an injuredperson or a person who is at risk of such an injury. 1002.63 The Commission described a number of reasons why the lawhesitates to impose such an obligation on individuals. The Commission thenconcluded that the arguments against the imposition of a positive duty to979899100As regards states with a duty to aid see C.M. Ciociola “Misprision of Felony andIts Progeny” 41 Brandeis L.J. 697 at 735-36 (2003).653 NW2d 794 (Minn Ct. App. 2002).Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424LRC CP 47-2007 at paragraph 2.5238
intervene had a great deal of weight, in particular, as the Commission noted,because they are consistent with the general basis of the duty of care innegligence which the Commission argued had not been criticised in anysignificant respect. 101 Furthermore, the Commission concluded that thearguments against imposing a duty to intervene outweigh any which wouldimpose a general duty. 102 In this section the Commission re-examines thesearguments in detail. The Commission notes in this respect that, in Stovin vWise 103 Lord Hoffmann stated that “[t]here are sound reasons why omissionsrequire different treatment from positive conduct” and that these can be set outin political, moral or economic terms. 104 The Commission will now turn to dealwith each of these arguments in turn as well as a number of additionalarguments that have been put forward.(a)Personal Liberty and Freedom of Choice2.64 One of the main arguments put forward against the introduction of apositive duty to intervene is that it would constitute too great an infringement ofpersonal liberty. 105 This argument stems from the limited choice offered byaffirmative duties to potential defendants. In Stovin v Wise Lord Nichollsreferred to this argument. He stated that:“Liability for omissions gives rise to a problem not present withliability for careless acts. He who wishes to act must act carefully ornot at all … With liability for omissions, however, a person is notoffered a choice. The law compels him to act when left to himself hemight do nothing. 1062.65 Although it can be said that every duty which arises under law, bothnegative and positive, restricts our personal freedom, positive duties unlikenegative ones are more restrictive because they deny us the option to avoidbeing subjected to them. Kortmann sets out a good example of this: if onebelieves they cannot act as a reasonable driver would, they can decide not todrive. However, one does not have the same option where they are required toact as a reasonable rescuer would upon witnessing an accident. However,Kortmann also notes that imposing positive duties does not in reality leave us101102103104105106LRC CP 47-2007 at paragraph 2.50.LRC CP 47-2007 at paragraph 2.51.[1996] 3 All ER 801 at 819.Ibid.See Kortmann Altruism in Private Law (Oxford University Press 2005) at 15-16.[1996] 3 All ER 801 at 809.39
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 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 and 110:
made those decisions, transfers to
Page 111 and 112:
condition that the Good Samaritan a
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?