Good Samaritans Can Be Liable for Damages to Person Injured During Rescue Attempt; Statutory Immunity for Emergency Care Applies Only to Those Who Render Medical Care in Medical Emergencies.

View Westlaw version with hypertext links

In Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45 C.4th 322, 86 C.R.3d 350, 197 P.3d 164, plaintiff, a passenger in a car involved in a traffic accident, sued a friend who removed her from the car, alleging that defendant's actions caused permanent injury and rendered her a paraplegic. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on the ground of statutory immunity under Health & Saf.C. 1799.102. The Court of Appeal reversed. Held, the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

(a) Parties' contentions. Health & Saf.C. 1799.102 provides: "No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.” Defendant argues that the statute applies broadly to both medical and nonmedical care rendered at the scene of any emergency, while plaintiff argues that the statute applies narrowly to those who render medical care at the scene of a medical emergency. (45 C.4th 327.)

(b) Statutory Analysis. Under principles of statutory construction, Health & Saf.C. 1799.102 immunizes only those who, in good faith, render medical care at the scene of a medical emergency. (45 C.4th 327.) A statute providing broad immunity would likely appear in the Civil Code. Instead, Health & Saf.C. 1799.102 appears in the division of the Code entitled "Emergency Medical Services." Other statutes in this division expressly refer to emergency medical attention or care. This indicates that the Legislature intended this entire division to apply to medical emergency situations. (45 C.4th 327.) Health & Saf.C. 1797.70 provides that an "emergency" is a situation "in which an individual has a need for immediate medical attention," leading to the conclusion that "the scene of an emergency" under Health & Saf.C. 1799.102 involves a medical emergency. This conclusion is further supported by the second sentence of Health & Saf.C. 1799.102 which excludes from "the scene of an emergency" places where medical care is usually offered. Further, Health & Saf.C. 1799.107, which is intended to encourage public entities and emergency rescue personnel to give emergency assistance, broadly defines "emergency services" to include nonmedical situations, but expressly limits this definition to this particular section. (45 C.4th 329.)

(c) Common law principles. Defendant's broad interpretation of Health & Saf.C. 1799.102 would undermine established common law regarding liability for assisting others. There is no general duty to give assistance, but under the common law, a person who undertakes to help others has a duty to exercise due care. Nothing in the statute overcomes the judicial presumption that the Legislature does not intend to overrule established common law principles when it enacts legislation. (45 C.4th 332.)

(d) Other "Good Samaritan" statutes. A broad interpretation would also render superfluous other "Good Samaritan" statutes, such as Govt.C. 50086 (immunity for person trained in first aid who is summoned by authorities and renders emergency services) and Harb. & Nav.C. 656(b) (immunity for person who assists at scene of vessel collision). (45 C.4th 333.)

A concurring and dissenting opinion, in which two justices concur, disagrees with the majority's limitation of Health & Saf.C. 1799.102 immunity to medical care given in medical emergencies. "There is no reason why one kind of lay volunteer aid should be immune, while another is not." (45 C.4th 334.)

Witkin References

On tort privilege for emergency medical aid, see 5 Summary (10th), Torts, §132 et seq.

On refusal to render emergency services, see 5 Summary (10th), Torts, §138.

On duty of care in an emergency, see 6 Summary (10th), Torts, §§900, 901.

On defenses in negligence actions, see 6 Summary (10th), Torts, §1280 et seq.