BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 39|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 39
Author: Benoit (R), et al
Amended: 5/13/09
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/5/09
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno, Walters
SUBJECT : Personal liability immunity
SOURCE : City of Beverly Hills
DIGEST : This bill 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.
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 case law interprets California's
"good Samaritan" law 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 (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322.)
CONTINUED
SB 39
Page
2
Existing law provides that no disaster service worker who
is performing disaster services ordered by lawful authority
during a state of war emergency, a state of emergency, or a
local emergency, as defined, shall be liable for civil
damages on account of personal injury to or death of any
person or damage to property resulting from an act or
omission in the line of duty, except one that is willful
(Civ. Code Sec. 1714.5.)
This bill revises the existing immunity provided in Civil
Code Section 1714.5 for disaster service workers to clarify
that, notwithstanding any other law, 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 provides that a disaster service worker is
"performing disaster services" when acting within the scope
of the worker's responsibilities under the authority of a
governmental emergency organization which is defined as the
emergency organization of any state, city, city and county,
county, or other local governmental agency or public
agency, as specified.
This bill provides that nothing in Section 1714.5 of the
Civil Code shall be construed to alter any existing legal
duties or obligations. The amendments to this section made
by the act amending this section shall apply exclusively to
any legal action filed on or after the effective date of
that act.
Background
Under traditional principles of common law, an individual
has no duty to come to the aid of another. If, however,
one does assist another then he or she has a duty to
exercise reasonable care. If the actions of the "good
Samaritan" fall below this standard of care and he or she
causes harm then the good Samaritan may be held liable for
any harm to the injured person. There are certain
statutory exceptions to this rule, however. Most
relevantly, Civil Code Section 1714.5 provides that
SB 39
Page
3
disaster service workers are not liable for civil damages
resulting from an act or omission, except one that is
willful. Also, Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102
provides that no person who, in good faith and not for
compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an
emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from
any act or omission.
Last December, the California Supreme Court interpreted
this provision in Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322
to hold that the Legislature intended that Section 1799.102
provide immunity from liability for any person who renders
emergency medical care. Because the defendant in Van Horn
did not render emergency medical care, she could be held
liable for her actions in assisting the plaintiff.
Although this bill does not directly address the court's
ruling in Van Horn , it revises existing law's immunity for
disaster service workers to clarify that the immunity
applies to workers who are performing disaster services
anywhere within the jurisdiction covered by the emergency
unless the worker acted willfully.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/13/08)
City of Beverly Hills (source)
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
City of Murrieta
Civil Justice Association of California
League of California Cities
National Ski Patrol
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : To explain the need for this bill,
the author points to a Briefing Paper prepared by the City
of Beverly Hills which directly addressed the Van Horn
decision. The City makes a number of points to express its
concern that the Van Horn decision could be used to
undermine existing immunities for disaster service workers.
Civil Code Section 1714.5 provides for immunity for
SB 39
Page
4
disaster service workers when they are performing disaster
services under a state of emergency as long as any harm
they cause does not result from an act or omission that is
willful. This protection from liability is included in a
section that also provides immunity from liability for
anyone who owns or maintains a building that is a
designated disaster shelter.
The City of Beverly Hills expresses concern that this
placement in the statute might lead a court to limit the
application of the immunity protections for disaster
service workers. As an example, the City refers to the
Supreme Court's analysis in Van Horn in which the Court
applied principles of statutory construction to determine
the scope of the immunity provided for in California's good
Samaritan law. The Court considered the words of the
statute, giving them a commonsense meaning while
recognizing that the language of a statute must be
construed in context and harmonized with other provisions
relating to the same subject matter to the extent possible.
The City further explains its concerns on this point:
Even though [Civil Code] Section 1714.5 appears to
provide broad immunity, it is attached to a provision
regarding disaster shelters. Unfortunately, if the
analysis of Van Horn is applied to harmonize these
provisions, a court could conclude that Section 1714.5
has limited application and does not provide the broad
immunity we believe disaster service workers
experience today.
It is important to clarify the scope of Section
1714.5, so that disaster service worker immunity
applies anywhere within the jurisdiction covered by
the emergency and trumps all other liability laws.
In order to address this concern, this bill provides that
the immunity provided to a disaster service worker applies
when the worker is performing disaster services "anywhere
within the jurisdiction covered by the emergency" and
"notwithstanding any other provision of law."
RJG:nl 5/13/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SB 39
Page
5
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****