BILL ANALYSIS
AB 83
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 83 (Feuer)
As Amended March 5, 2009
2/3 vote. Urgency
JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, | | |
| |Evans, Jones, Knight, | | |
| |Krekorian, Lieu, Monning, | | |
| |Nielsen | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to encourage Good Samaritans to continue to
step forward and help others in danger. Specifically, among
other things, this bill :
1)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
not be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or
omission.
2)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.
3)Clarifies, in response to the recent decision by the
California Supreme Court, that laypersons other than 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)Specifies that nothing in this section shall be construed to
change any existing legal duties or obligations and contains
an urgency clause to clarify the law in this area as quickly
as possible.
AB 83
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
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.)
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bi-partisan bill, approved by
unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee, 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 (Health & Safety Code
Section 1799.102) 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
AB 83
Page 3
fail or unintentionally even turn out to make matters worse.
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 under Health & Safety Code Section
1799.102 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 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
AB 83
Page 4
in grossly negligent or reckless behavior. Because the measure
is designed to encourage Good Samaritans to 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.
Although like so many other state approaches this bill immunizes
Good Samaritans from negligent actions when seeking to assist
others in peril, it logically does not immunize actions that are
grossly negligent or even outright reckless. The author states
that this balanced approach, reflective of the approach taken by
many other states, makes sense because no one would contend that
a would-be rescuer who pulls an accident victim from an
automobile and then attempts to choke or strike them should be
completely free from potential responsibility for the harm they
cause.
The "gross negligence or willful and wanton conduct" proviso in
the bill also appears to be completely consistent with other
existing California Good Samaritan statutes that grant qualified
immunity to various professionals who render emergency care
voluntarily, without expectation of compensation, and outside of
the scope of their employment.
Several groups have written to the Judiciary Committee in
support of this legislation, 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:
A proposed law would give legal cover to passersby who
help out in an emergency? 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
AB 83
Page 5
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: 0000183