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

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