BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 39
Senator Benoit
As Amended April 27, 2009
Hearing Date: May 5, 2009
Civil Code
SK:jd
SUBJECT
Personal Liability: Immunity
DESCRIPTION
This bill would revise 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 contains an urgency clause.
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
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
SB 39 (Benoit)
Page 2 of ?
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.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
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.)
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 would revise 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 would provide 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 contains an urgency clause.
SB 39 (Benoit)
Page 3 of ?
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
To explain the need for this bill, the author points to a
Briefing Paper prepared by the City of Beverly Hills regarding a
previous version of this bill 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, as described
in more detail below.
2.Concern that Civil Code Section 1714.5 might be interpreted by
a court to have limited application
As noted above, Civil Code Section 1714.5 provides for immunity
for 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
SB 39 (Benoit)
Page 4 of ?
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 would provide 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."
3.Bill would also address concern that the existing "good
Samaritan" statute does not apply to certain emergencies
California's good Samaritan law, which provides for immunity for
rendering emergency care at the scene of an emergency, does not
apply to care rendered in emergency departments or other places
where medical care is usually offered. The City of Beverly
Hills asserts that disaster service workers who perform disaster
services in an emergency room or other location where medical
care is usually provided therefore would not get the benefit of
the immunity provided under the good Samaritan statute.
As a result, the City believes that it is important to ensure
that disaster service workers are protected under the existing
Civil Code Section 1714.5. The City asserts that the changes to
Civil Code Section 1714.5 proposed by this bill would make clear
that disaster service workers are protected from liability under
Section 1714.5 and further states in its Briefing Paper:
Clarifying Section 1714.5 will also serve an additional
purpose. . . . If a disaster service worker assists at a
location where medical care is usually provided, the worker
would not be covered by Section 1799.102's immunity . . . By
clarifying that Section 1714.5 immunity covers disaster
service workers "while performing disaster service duties
anywhere within the jurisdiction covered by such emergency,"
the immunity from liability would cover emergency rooms as
well as any other location within the jurisdiction covered by
the emergency.
4.Author's amendment
On page 2, delete lines 1-2 (deletes the title of the Act, which
is no longer relevant to the current substance of the bill)
On page 3, between lines 27 and 28, insert:
SB 39 (Benoit)
Page 5 of ?
(e) Nothing in this section 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 the act.
Support : City of Beverly Hills; National Ski Patrol (other
support not relevant to current version of the bill)
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
AB 83 (Feuer), which has been referred to this Committee, would
provide 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.
AB 90 (Adams), which has been referred to the Assembly Judiciary
Committee, would revise 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.
Prior Legislation : None Known
**************