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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(g)Indeterminate Number of ClaimsIn Donoghue v Stevenson 127 Lord Atkin pointed out that to create a positive dutyto intervene could create a situation in which innumerable claims could arise.He pointed out that the common law had, for this reason, developed rules whichlimit the range of complainants and their remedies. In addition, the Commissionbelieves that, were moral wrongdoing to be a cause of action, there could wellbe numerous types of damage which might be difficult or even impossible toquantify. Certainly, what one person considers immoral or wrong, anotherperson might not. In this regard, enforcing moral obligations could lead to muchuncertainty in the law. In particular, it has been argued that the recognition ofmoral obligations as valid legal claims would destabilise written law by replacingit with the varied morals of those sitting on the bench. 128(h)Several Tortfeasors / „Why Pick on Me?‟ Argument2.76 Lord Hoffmann in Stovin v Wise stated that:“[a] duty to prevent harm to others or to render assistance to aperson in danger or distress may apply to a large and indeterminateclass of people who happen to be able to do something. Why shouldone be held liable rather than the other?” 1292.77 The Commission considers this to be a compelling argument in casesinvolving nonfeasance or passive inaction. The Commission believes that theargument that each of the spectators is equally to blame where none of themacted is an important one. Furthermore, unlike the situation involvingmisfeasance, in cases of nonfeasance it will be difficult to identify who exactly isresponsible for the harm which has occurred. 130 As noted in the ConsultationPaper, 131 cases of inaction do not afford the opportunity to analyse whoseinaction is most responsible for the harm.2.78 The Commission acknowledges, however, the argument that thedifficulties posed by the “Why pick on me?” argument are no less surmountablethan those posed by ordinary negligence cases involving many tortfeasors. 132In those cases, while the victim has the right to only one recovery, each127128129130131132[1932] AC 562.Union Pacific Railway Co. v Cappier 72 P. 281 at 283. (Kan. 1903).[1996] 3 All ER 801.Kortmann Altruism in Private Law (Oxford University Press 2005) at 16-17.Weinrib “The Case for a Duty to Rescue” (1980) 90 Yale LJ 247 at 262.LRC CP 47-2007 at paragraph 2.45.Weinrib “The Case for a Duty to Rescue” (1980) 90 Yale LJ 247 at 26244
tortfeasor is liable to the victim and entitled to make a contribution with each ofthe other tortfeasors.(3) Conclusions2.79 The submissions received by the Commission after the publication ofthe Consultation Paper pointed out that a duty to intervene has never been acharacteristic of Irish law and that, in the main, volunteers usually act foraltruistic reasons and because they have a moral, rather than legal, duty tointervene. A number of submissions also note that a duty to intervene whichmay open individuals to civil liability might have the unintended consequence ofmaking them unwilling or afraid to volunteer or to intervene in emergencysituations which, the Commission considers, would be inimical to the policyobjectives set out in Chapter 1.2.80 Having considered these submissions and reflected again on thearguments that required consideration on this aspect of the Attorney General‟srequest, the Commission remains of the view that there should be no reform ofthe law in this area so as to impose a duty on citizens in general, or anyparticular group of citizens, to intervene for the purposes of assisting an injuredperson or a person at risk of such injury.2.81 The Commission also notes that, in addition to the argumentsdiscussed above, it could also be said that the imposition of affirmative dutiescould lead to indeterminate or large numbers of claims thereby putting a strainon limited budgets, as well as provoking detrimentally defensive approaches.The imposition of a duty to intervene could also have other adverse effects onthe provision of beneficial public services which the Commission considerswould be in conflict with the policy objectives outlined in Chapter 1.2.82 The Commission recommends that there should be no reform of thelaw to impose a duty on citizens in general, or any particular group of citizens,to intervene for the purpose of assisting an injured person or a person who is atrisk of such an injury.(4) “Easy rescue”2.83 The Commission noted in the Consultation Paper that somecommentators have taken a modified stance in advocating a so-called “easyrescue,” in the sense of an intervention that poses little or no inconvenience tothe intervenor, rather than a general positive duty to intervene. 1332.84 The Commission argued that while it may be more reasonable toexpect an individual to conduct an easy rescue, the Commission found that133LRC CP 47-2007 at paragraphs 2.47-2.50. See also the discussion in Weinrib“The Case for a Duty to Rescue” (1980) 90 Yale LJ 247.45
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 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?