California Appellate Court Decision Puts Lay Rescuers at Risk
Friday March 23, 2007
Good Samaritan laws are meant to protect lay people who, for no reason other than kindness, come to the aid of fellow human beings in need.
The general concept is that, as long as you help without any expectation of payment or reward, you will be immune from liability for screwing things up while you're trying to help - as long as you don't screw up really bad.
A ruling on March 21, 2007, by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3, essentially restricts California's version of the Good Samaritan Law - the one we think we're following when we stop at a car crash - to only acts that can be defined as emergency medical care.
This thinking is wrongheaded and will likely result in hesitancy on the part of potential Good Samaritans, not a good idea in an emergency situation. Decisiveness is the key to a good outcome in an emergency.
This ruling, and the press surrounding it, may make Good Samaritans in every state pause when action is needed.
To understand the scope of this ruling, read No Good Samaritan
Comments
how can they do this im a nurse and if i know that as a lay person that the person that im trying to help can sue me for helping them i would not even attempt it. i teach first aid and cpr its really going to be hard to tell people yes you now have a life saving skill but if you use it you may have to pay for it the rest of your life!
I expect it to be appealed. Until then, Californians (like myself) will have to consider the repercussions of helping when our actions could be construed as either medical care or rescue. Medical care is protected - rescue is not.
how about first responder