Posted by Rich Spurr on March 26, 1998 at 13:08:46:
Definition of " Good Samaritan Law" according to the Washington state Legislature RCW 70.136.070 is as follows: " at the scene of an incident anyone who in good faith renders emergency care, assistance
or advice, is not liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of such care
assistance, or advice, other that acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or wilful
or wanton misconduct.
This law also requires that you be advised of certain conditions to ensure your protection:
1. You are not obligated to assist and you may withdraw
your assistance at any time.
2. You cannot profit from assisting in any form.
3. You must agree to act under the direction of the person
in charge, if any.
4. You are not covered by this law if you caused the initial accident.
Examples--Sept. 5, 1997 Milwaukee, Wis. A 16 year old was badly beaten and the
hosts of the party were held liable and were convicted for not helping her.
In Jackson v. Mercy Health Center a physician aided a visitor who had fainted during the birth of his child.
He fell off the bed, was injured, and sued the medical personnel. The court held that the physician-patient relationship was
with the wife and child only and the good samaritan statue applied to the doctor and the other medical personnel involved.
No gross negligence was found, so the GSS protected the doctor and the staff within the room.
Also, under Oklahoma state law, athletic trainers who come to the aid at amateur sporting events, are specifically protected by
the law.
Another definition of the GSS acc. to Minnesota is: A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person has suffered grave physical
harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the person involved.
Reasonable assistance may include attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel.
A person who violates this is guilty of a misdemeanor.
part two-- A person who, without compensation or the expectation of such renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency or during transit to a
location where professional medical care will be rendered, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by that person in rendering emergency care.
also, this does not include care rendered during the course of regular employment, and receiving compensation or expecting to receive such compaensation.
The scene of an emergency is an area outside the confines of a hospital or other institution that has medical facilities, or an office of a licensed medical personnel.
Part three-- The legal issues that are involved are:
Acc. th Teresa Schwartz at George Washington Univ. " its not just because they are inhumane or just don't care, there are specific reasons that people do not get involved.
Some of these are the people are afraid of siding on the wrong side in a domestic dispute, others are afraid that the people whom they are helping will sue them no matter
what care they render.
However, there are many states who enacted laws that require people who witness accidents such as in Louisiana, hunters are required to help anyone who is injured. In Momtana and
Utah, people can order someone to help them arrest someone to stop a crime. Rhode Island requires those involved in a car accident to help those injured in a car accident to call
for help and call the police.(from the Salt Lake Tribune)
Also, some states have Good Samaritan Acts--in Florida for example the law reads as follows " any person including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith helps
in an emergency situation or care either in direct response or arising out of a situation without having the proper medical equipment to aid the victim(s) shall not be held liable for any civil
damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of not aiding in medical treatment where the person might have otherwise acted under ordinary circumstances."
As I researched the web and other information sources, there are cases at all levels of the judicial branch citing " professional courtesy."
What I found within the last two to five years, there have been 81 cases dealing with professional courtesy. The two cases that i offer are
Port Evergladesv. International Longshoremen's association case no. 94-1331 which deals with the professional courtesy in the justices stated
that the agency to exclude competing presenters from a public meeting violated the sunshine law and did deal with the professional courtesy issue.
The justices did find that there was a lack of the professiona courtesy which they go on to say that" the lack of committment to one's professional duties
and how lawyers manipulate the system without any concern for right or wrong is what concerns us the most."
the other case that i would like to offer is Green v. Goldberg case no. 92-0940. in this case, acc. to the florida court of appeal, Dr. singer who is an oncologist was barred
from testifying by the lower court based on the standard of care and ' professional courtesy.' His testimony on the standard of care and his statement that the surgeon makes the
final decision on whether to do a biopsy. In context, this statement is one of 'professional courtesy' and medical ethics. acc. th the court decision no doctor can compel another
to perform surgery. The opinion goes on th say that Dr. Singer is a spaecialist, not a general surgeon as is the defendant in this case.