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

ease with which the bystander may intervene may be determined by referring tothe nature of the activity undertaken, e.g. a phone call to the emergencyservices, or the level of skill of the particular bystander, e.g. a trained paramedicmay be in a much stronger position to administer CPR than an untrainedbystander.2.88 The Commission notes, however, that a duty to intervene which isqualified by the level of inconvenience that may be encountered by theintervenor is of an uncertain nature. On the one hand, the duty may oblige thebystander to do only that which takes the least effort, as this is likely to causethe least inconvenience. However, such an intervention is unlikely to benefit theinjured stranger to any great extent and, therefore, may be pointless. This lackof certainty is exacerbated by the fact that the action necessitated by the duty tointervene would vary from intervenor to intervenor depending on the particularskill set of the person involved. Furthermore, clarification of the circumstancessurrounding the situation in which an easy rescue might be undertaken wouldpose a virtually impossible task. For these reasons and the argument outlinedabove as to the multitude of persons to whom liability might potentially attach,the Commission recommends that considers that there should be no duty tocarry out an “easy rescue.”2.89 The Commission recommends that there should not be reform of thelaw to impose a duty to carry out an “easy rescue.”2.90 The Commission notes that this provides an answer to one of thequestions posed by the Attorney Generals‟ request. The Commission nextturns to address the situation where an individual “Good Samaritan” doesintervene to help a person in need and causes injury or harm in the processand, likewise, where a person intervenes as a “volunteer” and causes injury to aperson in his care or for whom he or she is responsible.47