BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 83|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 83
Author: Feuer (D), et al
Amended: 6/15/09 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/9/09
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno, Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 3/12/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Personal liability: immunity
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that no person who in good
faith and not for compensation renders emergency medical or
nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency
shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or
omission other than an act or omission constituting gross
negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a person has no
duty to come to the aid of another, but if he or she
decides to assist another then he or she must act with
reasonable care. ( Artiglio v. Corning Inc . (1998) 18
Cal.4th 604; Williams v. State of California (1983) 34
Cal.3d 18.)
Existing law provides that no person who in good faith, and
CONTINUED
AB 83
Page
2
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. Existing law also
provides that the scene of an emergency shall not include
emergency departments and other places where medical care
is usually offered. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 1799.102.)
Existing caselaw interprets Health and Safety Code Section
1799.102 to provide immunity from civil liability only for
individuals who provide emergency medical care at the scene
of a medical emergency. ( Van Horn v. Watson, supra , 45
Cal.4th 322.)
Existing law defines "gross negligence" as "the entire
failure to exercise care, or the exercise of so slight a
degree of care as to justify the belief that there is an
entire indifference to the interest and welfare of others."
( Weber v. Pinyan (1937) 9 Cal.2d 226.) "Gross negligence"
has also been described as "the want of even scant care or
an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of
conduct." (See, e.g., Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection
Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175; City of Santa Barbara v.
Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747.)
Existing law defines "willful or wanton misconduct" as
"conduct by a person who may have no intent to cause harm,
but who intentionally performs an act so unreasonable and
dangerous that he or she knows or should know it is highly
probable that harm will result." ( Donnelly v. Southern
Pacific Co . (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863; City of Santa Barbara v.
Superior Court, supra , 41 Cal.4th 747.)
This bill revises Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102
to provide that its provisions immunizing persons rendering
emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an
emergency from civil liability apply only to specified
medical, law enforcement, and emergency personnel.
This bill provides that it is the intent of the Legislature
to encourage other individuals to volunteer, without
compensation, to assist others in need during an emergency,
while ensuring that those volunteers who provide care or
assistance act responsibly.
AB 83
Page
3
This bill provides that any person, other than medical, law
enforcement, and emergency personnel, who in good faith and
not for compensation renders emergency medical or
nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency
shall not be liable for civil damages resulting from any
act or omission other than an act or omission constituting
gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. This
bill specifies that the scene of an emergency shall not
include emergency departments and other places where
medical care is usually offered.
This bill provides that it shall be not construed to change
any existing legal duties or obligations or to affect the
provisions in Civil Code Section 1714.5 as proposed to be
amended by SB 39 (Benoit). The changes proposed by this
bill would apply exclusively to any legal action filed on
or after the effective date of the bill.
Related Legislation
SB 39 (Benoit) which passed the Senate on 5/18/09 on
consent (36-0) revises existing immunity protections for
disaster service workers who perform disaster services
during a state of emergency to clarify that such workers
are not liable for civil damages resulting from an act or
omission while performing disaster services anywhere within
the jurisdiction covered by the emergency other than an act
or omission that is willful. This bill is in the Assembly.
AB 90 (Adams), which has been referred to the Assembly
Judiciary Committee, revises Health and Safety Code Section
1799.102 to provide for immunity from liability for any
person who in good faith and without compensation renders
emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an
emergency.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office:
[California's] so-called "Good Samaritan" law, enacted
29 years ago, sought to encourage persons to come to
the aid of those in peril by removing any fear of
AB 83
Page
4
liability for taking such potentially courageous
action. In the recent decision of Van Horn v. Watson,
however, the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote,
interpreting decades' old legislative intent, narrowly
construed Health & Safety Code Section 1799.102 to
apply only to situations in which a rescuer is
providing medical care in a medical emergency. ?the
Court's ruling may inadvertently discourage courageous
Californians from coming to the aid of others in an
emergency. Several newspaper editors and legal
scholars, as well as a broad section of organizations,
have similarly criticized the ruling, alleging that
fears of liability may tragically dissuade at least
some potential Good Samaritans from coming to the aid
of others in need. ?
[T]he qualified immunity provided by this bill strikes
a proper and delicate balance between "blanket
immunity," which some have called for, and the Court's
holding of no immunity except for those providing
"medical care" in a medical emergency. ?this balanced
approach offers fair protection to Good Samaritans,
while at the same time protecting rescued victims from
the ? grossly negligent interloper.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter, Chesbro, Conway,
Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Duvall,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel
Perez, Portantino, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth,
Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torres, Torrico,
Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Lieu, Price, Ruskin,
Torlakson
AB 83
Page
5
RJG:nl 6/16/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****