BILL ANALYSIS SB 127 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 127 (Ron Calderon) As Amended August 27, 2010 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :Vote not relevant JUDICIARY 10-0 JUDICIARY 9-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, |Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, | | |Evans, Hagman, Huffman, | |Hagman, Huffman, Jones, | | |Jones, Knight, Monning, | |Knight, Monning, Saldana | | |Saldana | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Seeks to establish requirements for the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by those health studios generally known as "24-hour clubs" that do not maintain personnel on site 24 hours a day but are accessible to members during times when no employee is present. Specifically, this bill : 1)Removes the July 1, 2012 sunset date provisions for existing requirements that every health studio acquire and maintain an AED, and train personnel in its use, thereby extending these requirements indefinitely. 2)Requires a health studio that allows its members access to its facility during times when it does not have an employee on the premises to: a) Train all employees in CPR and the use of an AED within 30 days of commencing employment; b) Ensure that trained staff are on the premises of the health studio a minimum of 50 hours per week; c) Submit annual reports for the next four years to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees containing specified information about the average number of hours the health studio was staffed prior to and after adoption of this legislation, and the number of reported cardiac incidents that occurred during non-staffed hours. Permits franchisors for a chain of franchised health studio to collect and report this data for its franchisees; and, SB 127 Page 2 d) Deny access to members when an employee is not present if the health studio operates in a space that is larger than 6,000 square feet. 3)Provides that any health studio that allows members access to its facilities during operating hours when employees trained in AED use are not present waives: a) Immunity from liability for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in rendering emergency care using an AED; b) The affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk, whether express or implied, as to a claim arising out of the absence of trained staff. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides immunity from civil liability to any person who completes a designated CPR course and who, in good faith, renders emergency CPR at the scene of an emergency, without the expectation of receiving compensation for providing the emergency care. 2)Exempts from civil liability any local agency, entity of state or local government, or other public or private organization which sponsors, authorizes, supports, finances, or supervises the training of citizens in CPR. 3)Provides immunity from liability for certain trained persons who in good faith and without compensation use an AED in rendering emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency. This qualified immunity does not apply in the case of personal injury or wrongful death resulting from the AED operator's gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. Nor does it apply to the manufacturer, designer, developer, distributor, installer, or supplier of an AED or defibrillator. 4)Substantially relaxed the requirement that building owners and others who acquire AEDs must ensure that expected AED users complete an accepted CPR and AED course as a condition of immunizing that building owner from any liability arising from the use of the acquired AED. Maintained the requirement that any immunities from civil liabilities in this context would not apply in cases of gross negligence or willful or wanton SB 127 Page 3 misconduct. 5)For a five-year period beginning July 7, 2007, requires a health studio, as defined, to acquire, maintain, and train personnel in the use of AEDs, as specified. Requires health studios to maintain AED-trained personnel on site during all of their normal operating hours. FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by Anytime Fitness, Inc., seeks to establish requirements for the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by those health studios generally known as "24-hour card key clubs" that do not maintain personnel on site 24 hours a day but are accessible to members during times when no employee is present. First, this bill would remove the sunset date provision from Section 104113 of the Health and Safety Code, thereby having the effect of indefinitely requiring that all health studios acquire and maintain AEDs, and train their personnel in the use of these devices. In addition, this bill would establish basic training and staffing requirements for those health studios that do not have AED-trained employees on the premises at all times (also known as"24-hour clubs"), but allow access to members when no employees are present. This bill also would require health studios, including franchisors of chains of health studios, to collect and report specified data over the next four years to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees for future evaluation. Finally, with respect to health studios that are 24-hour clubs, this bill appropriately waives the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk, whether express or implied, as to a claim arising out of the absence of trained staff, and waives immunity from liability for civil damages resulting from any act or omission by an employee rendering emergency care using an AED. An AED is a medical device used to administer an electric shock through the chest wall to the heart after someone suffers cardiac arrest. Built-in computers assess the patient's heart rhythm, determine whether the person is in cardiac arrest, and signal whether to administer the shock. Audible cues guide the user through the process. Portable AEDs are available upon a prescription from a medical authority. Their general cost is between $1,500 and $2,000 according to the American Heart Association (AHA). According to the AHA, cardiac arrest is a life-or-death situation, SB 127 Page 4 and the patient has very little chance of survival without defibrillation. However, the window of opportunity for saving lives through defibrillation is very small, being only 10-13 minutes even if CPR is administered correctly. According to the AHA, in cases of sudden cardiac arrest, CPR is merely a maintenance tool, and defibrillation must take place to "shock" the patient's heart into a proper working rhythm. Thus, the public would be better served, and lives could be saved, if businesses and offices across California are encouraged to have AEDs on-site. According to the AHA, AEDs contain microcomputers to accurately identify sudden cardiac arrests and make extensive use of audible prompting and signals to provide operators with clear and concise instruction, making their use uncomplicated, intuitive, and nearly foolproof. Safeguards are built in to protect both operator and victim and to ensure that the AED will only deliver a shock if, in fact, the device affirmatively determines that a victim is in sudden cardiac arrest. Further, the device does not allow for manual overrides, in the event a panicked operator tries to administer the shock even when the device finds that the victim is not in cardiac arrest. A search of the Lexis Nexis database continues to reveal no news articles, or successful federal or state cases, suing for liability against users of AEDs. Judiciary Committee staff research indicates that these devices are virtually "fail-safe" and easy enough for a child to use (although this is not generally recommended). No negative reaction has been found regarding the use of the AEDs, or any suit filed against someone using the AEDs. This is most likely due to the design programming that will not allow the user to administer an electric shock needlessly, therefore creating little chance of user-error in administering the AED. The only possible negative comment was that, hypothetically speaking, someone with a living will/Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order may be in public and suffer a cardiac episode. A bystander, unable to know the person has a DNR, or what his/her specific medical wishes are, may administer the AED against his/her wishes. As noted above, this measure clarifies that a health club waives the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk, whether express or implied, as to a claim arising out of the absence of AED-trained staff at its facility. The issue of assumption of risk involves the existence and scope of a defendant's duty of care, which is a legal question that depends on the nature of the SB 127 Page 5 activity involved and the parties' relationship to that activity. The doctrine of assumption of risk in negligence cases embodies two components: 1) primary assumption of risk-where the defendant owes no duty to the plaintiff to protect him or her from the particular risk; and, 2) secondary assumption of risk-where the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty, but the plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk created by the breach of that duty. (Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296, 308 (1992).) Primary assumption of risk operates as a complete bar to a plaintiff's cause of action, while the doctrine of secondary assumption of risks is part of the comparative fault scheme, where the trier of fact considers the relative responsibility of the parties in apportioning the loss. (Morgan v. Fuji Country USA, Inc. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 127 at p. 132.) Before concluding that a case comes within the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a court must not only examine the nature of the activity, but also the " 'defendant's role in, or relationship to" [that activity.] " (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 317.) Indeed, the scope of the legal duty owed by the defendant will frequently depend on such role or relationship. The Knight court noted that many courts, in analyzing the duty of the owner of a sports facility or ski resort, had defined "the risks inherent in the sport not only by virtue of the nature of the sport itself, but also by reference to the steps the sponsoring business entity reasonably should be obligated to take in order to minimize the risks without altering the nature of the sport." (Id. at p. 317, italics added.) The court concluded "that in the sports setting, as elsewhere, the nature of the applicable duty or standard of care frequently varies with the role of the defendant whose conduct is at issue in a given case." (Id. at p. 318.) This measure thus clarifies that a health club appropriately waives the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk, whether express or implied, as to any claim arising out of the absence of AED-trained staff at its facility if and when a customer is allegedly harmed through the absence of AED-trained staff. Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0006795