BILL ANALYSIS
AB 83
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 83 (Feuer)
As Amended June 15, 2009
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(March 12, |SENATE: |40-0 |(June 22, |
| | |2009) | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Seeks to encourage Good Samaritans to continue to
step forward and help others in danger without any fear of
facing a lawsuit. Specifically, among other things, this bill :
1)States the intent of the Legislature to encourage 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.
2)Clarifies that medical, law enforcement, and emergency
personnel who in good faith, and not for compensation, render
emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall continue to
be immune from liability for any civil damages resulting from
any act or omission.
3)Clarifies, in response to the recent decision by the
California Supreme Court, that laypersons, in addition to
medical, law enforcement, and emergency personnel, who in good
faith, and not for compensation, render emergency medical or
non-medical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency
shall also 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.
4)Contains an urgency clause to clarify the law in this area as
quickly as possible.
The Senate amendments are solely technical and clarifying in
nature.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 83
Page 2
1)Provides that no person who in good faith, and not for
compensation, renders emergency medical care at the scene of
an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting
from any act or omission. (Health & Safety Code 1799.102, as
interpreted by Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322.)
2)Defines "'wanton' or 'reckless' 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." (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court,
41 Cal.4th 747, 753 (2007) (emphasis added).)
3)Defines "gross negligence" as an "exercise of so slight a
degree of care as to justify the belief there was indifference
to the interest and welfare of others." (46 Cal. Jur. 3d
Negligence 100.)
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was virtually identical to
the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bi-partisan bill has not
received any negative votes. The measure responds to a recent
ruling by the California Supreme Court that, if left
unaddressed, could inadvertently discourage people from being
courageous "Good Samaritans" by coming to the aid of accident
victims facing great peril. In essence, the measure provides
immunity from suit to all Good Samaritans who render emergency
care at the scene of an emergency regardless of whether the care
they provide is found to be of a medical (e.g., CPR) or
non-medical nature (e.g., carrying someone out of a burning
building). However, the bill appropriately makes clear that
such broad protection from suit is appropriately not available
to rescuers who engage in grossly negligent or even reckless
behavior.
Last December, in Van Horn, the California Supreme Court
narrowly interpreted an existing statute that provides immunity
for anyone who in good faith renders "emergency care at the
scene of an emergency." In enacting this statute in 1980, the
Legislature sought to encourage people to come to the aid of
accident victims without fear of later being sued for their
efforts, should those efforts fail or unintentionally even turn
out to make matters worse.
AB 83
Page 3
In the Van Horn case, Lisa Torti pulled her friend and
co-worker, Alexandra Van Horn, from a crashed vehicle in Los
Angeles, fearing the vehicle was about to catch fire or even
explode. Tragically, in doing so, Torti may have worsened Van
Horn's injuries. Van Horn later sued the driver, who in turn
sued Torti for exacerbating Van Horn's injuries. The trial
court dismissed the action against Torti, finding that she was
immune from liability since she provided "emergency care at the
scene of an emergency." However, an appeals court then
overturned the trial court ruling. The California Supreme
Court, by a 4-3 vote, affirmed the appeals court decision. The
Court held that the state's "Good Samaritan" statute, when read
as part of the overall statutory scheme, only provides immunity
to persons with respect to medical care at the scene of an
emergency- not "non-medical" emergency assistance, such as
pulling a person from a potentially exploding automobile or a
burning building.
As the 4-3 vote suggests, the Supreme Court's narrow reading of
legislative intent is open to debate. More importantly,
however, the Court stressed that its ruling was primarily one of
statutory interpretation; the Court found that Torti was not
covered by statutory immunity, but did not find that her actions
were unreasonable or blameworthy. Thus the Court's decision in
this case was arguably an open invitation to the Legislature to
clarify its intentions as to how broadly it wishes to protect
Good Samaritans' good faith actions. The Court's decision
essentially addressed the question: does the Legislature
intend, via this Good Samaritan statute, to provide narrow
immunity from suit only to those Good Samaritans rendering
medical types of emergency care at the scene of an emergency
(e.g., CPR) or does the Legislature instead wish to provide
broader immunity that protects Good Samaritans from suit when
they provide non-medical assistance to those in peril as well
(e.g., carrying someone out of a burning building)?
This measure responds to this question by clarifying that this
Good Samaritan statute provides immunity to all rescuers who
render emergency care at the scene of an emergency -- regardless
of whether the care they provide is later found to be of a
medical or non-medical nature. However, the bill appropriately
makes clear that such broad immunity is unavailable to rescuers
who engage in grossly negligent or reckless behavior. Because
the measure is designed to encourage Good Samaritans to
AB 83
Page 4
volunteer in an emergency by protecting them from inappropriate
liability when they render assistance to others in need,
language in the bill clarifies that it does not impose any new
legal duties or obligations. Nor does it seek to change any
existing duties to act or to refrain from acting or liability
for payment of damages when a party is at fault. In addition,
the bill is an urgency measure to minimize any confusion about
the state of Good Samaritan law in California.
The bill is supported by an unusual coalition including the
Civil Justice Association of California and the Consumer
Attorneys of California.
Editorial Support : The Los Angeles Times editorialized in
support of this legislation on March 4, 2009, stating in part
that:
Coming to the rescue of so-called good Samaritans, new
state legislation would give much-needed legal
protection to passersby who help in an emergency? The
main issue is that after the Supreme Court ruling
[noted above], Californians were left with a loud
message that their heroism might backfire. Feuer's
legislation would send a new message: that random
acts of kindness are encouraged and protected.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001485