Summary: The notion of a good samaritan has been around since Biblical times. However, in the United States , actual Good Samaritan statutes have been on the books only since 1959. All the states and the District of Columbia have Good Samaritan laws, although these laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This article serves as a general introduction to the doctrine of the Good Samaritan.
Topics covered:
General information
Example
General Information
The first statute dealing with legal liability protection for good samaritans was passed in the United States in 1959. The purpose of the law was, and is, to encourage prompt emergency care for injured parties by granting immunity from civil damages and removing the fear of liability.
Currently, all the states and the District of Columbia have Good Samaritan statutes. Naturally, the laws vary from state to state. As examples, the classes of persons protected by the law is not the same in every state; some states limit the immunity to emergency aid in specific locations; some states limit the immunity to aid exercised according to specific standards of conduct. There are, however, at least two common requirements in all the states laws: the emergency care must be provided in good faith, and it must be provided without expecting payment.
Good Samaritan laws offer several items for courts to consider when a legal challenge is made to using the laws. Since the various laws all speak of some standard of care, the courts have to look at the care provided by the good samaritan to decide if such care was reasonable, and not a case of gross negligence. And, the courts must decide if the care was given under truly emergency or life-threatening circumstances, circumstances not created by the person providing the care. Another consideration is whether the aid was given without any objection from the person being helped. Finally, the courts must check on whether the provider of the care is not covered by the Good Samaritan statute, such as those individuals who by the nature of their work have a pre-existing duty to render aid to an injured person.
Example
A court case from Massachusetts offers an example of how a Good Samaritan statute is applied; the case is Campbell v. Schwartz, 712 N.E.2d 1196 (1999). This was an appeal from a summary judgment in which a court in Massachusetts decided that the Good Samaritan law (based on a Maine statute) barred a claim for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering.
In this case, the husband of the plaintiff died and she sued Schwartz; Schwartz claimed the Good Samaritan statute as a defense. The husband and Schwartz were riding their snowmobiles in a Maine forest. They decided to go back to their camp, but only Schwartz arrived. Schwartz and a friend went back out looking for Campbell and found him by his snowmobile which had broken down. Campbell got on the rear of Schwartz' snowmobile for the ride back to camp; however, on the way, Campbell apparently fell off the snowmobile and was hit by another snowmobile and died. The police report noted that the death of Campbell was caused by the snowmobile driver's inexperience, by Schwartz letting Campbell ride on the back of his snowmobile when it was not built to carry passengers, traveling at a high rate of speed, and by Campbell being intoxicated.
After he was sued for wrongful death, Schwartz claimed Maine's Good Samaritan statute gave him immunity from liability. The law stated that “any person who voluntarily, without expectation of monetary or other compensation from the person aided or treated, renders first aid, emergency treatment, or rescue assistance to a person who is unconscious, ill, injured, or in need of rescue shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person, unless it is established that such injuries or death were caused willfully, wantonly, or recklessly or by gross negligence”. Schwartz claimed that Campbell was in need of rescue due to the circumstances and that he was acting as a good samaritan in rendering such assistance. The plaintiff denied the deceased was in need of rescue and stated that the defendant showed gross negligence by his actions.
The trial court agreed with the defendant and the court of appeals affirmed. The appeals court cited the report of the police investigator that declared that when one is stranded alone in cold weather with an inoperable snowmobile and when that person is legally intoxicated, such circumstances create a potential life-threatening situation. Under such circumstances, the provisions of the Good Samaritan statute were applicable. Campbell was in need of rescue; Schwartz went to the aid of Campbell voluntarily and without expectation of any compensation; Schwartz was not reckless or grossly negligent. The death of Campbell was unfortunate, but Schwartz was protected in his actions by the statute.