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

equivalent services. Furthermore, there may be situations in which the informalvolunteer has benefited from a certain level of professional training that goesbeyond the knowledge and skill possessed by the formal volunteer. TheCommission concludes, therefore, that regardless of whether the voluntaryservice provider is an informal volunteer, a formal volunteer or a voluntaryorganisation, harm is more foreseeable where the provider departs from its areaof competence.3.83 The Commission also notes that where the voluntary service provideris an organisation it is foreseeable that some harm will arise. As theorganisation depends on the services of many individuals to carry out itsfunctions there is more room for human error and, consequently, harm of somekind. Such a situation might necessitate the assessment of the voluntaryorganisation‟s methods of selecting, training and directing its volunteers to seewhether those methods were sufficient to reduce or eliminate the risk.(g)Relationship between Service Provider and Recipient3.84 The nature of the relationship between the voluntary service providerand the recipient of the voluntary service is also relevant to an analysis offoreseeability of harm. For instance, where the relationship is one ofundertaking and non-detrimental reliance, there is clearly less risk of harm asthe recipient still retains some control over his or her own well-being. Wherethe relationship is one of undertaking and detrimental reliance, however, thevoluntary service provider might be expected to foresee a greater risk of harm,as the recipient is in a more vulnerable position because of the voluntaryservice provider‟s undertaking. Where the relationship is one of control anddependence, the voluntary service provider ought to be aware of the potentialimpact of its intervention on the recipient of the voluntary service. In this regard,the Commission notes that the voluntary service provider should consider thedanger of aggravating an existing vulnerability and the fact that the recipient ofthe voluntary service is not in the position to either ensure his or her own safetyor to seek assistance elsewhere.3.85 The Commission considers that the argument of “inevitable harm” isless persuasive in the case of the voluntary service provider. While situationsinvolving the Good Samaritan or the voluntary rescuer might be more conduciveto the assertion that some harm was inevitable to ensure the success of theoverall rescue, such circumstances are less likely to arise in situations involvingthe voluntary service provider. In this regard, the Commission underlines howdifficult it would be to show that any harm could be justified by the overallbenefits of the voluntary services provided. In the specific context of thevoluntary organisation, this argument might be translated into the assertion thatinjury to one individual is justified by the success of the organisation‟s overallgoal.77