BILL ANALYSIS
SB 39
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 39 (Benoit) - As Amended: May 13, 2009
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to Be Amended)
SUBJECT : PERSONAL LIABILITY IMMUNITY: DISASTER SERVICE WORKERS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD EXISTING LAW THAT PROVIDES IMMUNITY FOR
DISASTER SERVICE WORKERS BE CLARIFIED TO ENSURE THAT THESE
WORKERS ENJOY IMMUNITY FOR THEIR SERVICES WHEN PERFORMED
THROUGHOUT THE JURISDICTION COVERED BY THE EMERGENCY?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill clarifies existing law that extends
immunity to disaster service workers, in order to further the
Legislature's intent to encourage people to assist others in a
state of emergency, without fear of liability for their acts.
The bill provides helpful clarification that disaster service
workers shall not be liable for civil damages for injury or
death resulting from their acts or omissions in performing
disaster services anywhere within the jurisdiction covered by
the state of emergency, unless the act or omission is willful.
The immunity applies only when the worker is acting within the
scope of his or her responsibilities under the authority of the
governmental emergency organization. This bill was approved in
the Senate on May 18, 2009 by a vote of 36-0. The bill is
supported by the Civil Justice Association of California, the
City of Beverly Hills, and the National Ski Patrol. The author
worked very closely with the Chair of this Committee as well as
with representatives of the Consumer Attorneys of California
to ensure this measure is completely complimentary and
consistent with AB 83 (Good Samaritans), which it is. The bill
has no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Clarifies the immunity extended to disaster service
workers who provide assistance during an emergency.
SB 39
Page 2
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that disaster service workers who are performing
disaster services during a state of war emergency, a state of
emergency, or a local emergency, shall not be liable for civil
damages for personal injury or death resulting from the
workers' act or omission while performing services anywhere
within the jurisdiction covered by the emergency, unless the
act or omission is willful.
2)Provides that a disaster service worker is considered to be
performing disaster services when the worker is acting within
the scope of the worker's responsibilities, and under the
authority of the governmental emergency organization.
3)Defines "governmental emergency organization" as the emergency
organization of any state, city, city and county, county,
district, or other local governmental agency or public agency,
which is authorized pursuant to the California Emergency
Services Act (Government Code section 8550 et seq.).
4)Provides that the act is an urgency statute made necessary by
the California Supreme Court's recent ruling in Van Horn v.
Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322, which narrowly interpreted the
more general Good Samaritan statute, and which calls into
question the protections that other volunteer emergency
service providers may have.
5)Provides that the amended statute will only apply to legal
actions filed on or after the date that the amended statute
goes into effect.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a person has no general duty to come to the aid
of another, but that if he or she decides to undertake to
assist another (acting as a "Good Samaritan"), then the Good
Samaritan does have a duty to use reasonable care. (Artiglio
v. Corning (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604; Williams v. State of
California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18.)
2)Provides that individuals providing emergency care in good
faith at the scene of an emergency are not liable for damages
SB 39
Page 3
resulting from medical care, but are liable for damages
resulting from nonmedical care. (Health and Safety Code
section 1799.102, as interpreted by Van Horn v. Watson (2008)
45 Cal.4th 322.)
3)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,
shall be liable for civil damages for personal injury or death
resulting from the workers' act or omission in the line of
duty, unless the act or omission is willful. (Civil Code
section 1714.5.)
4)Provides that individuals who own or maintain disaster
shelters, as specified, shall not be liable for personal
injuries, except those resulting from willful acts or
omissions. (Civil Code section 1714.5.)
COMMENTS : Last December, in Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45
Cal.4th 322, the California Supreme Court narrowly interpreted
an existing statute (Health and 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 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 and, 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 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"
SB 39
Page 4
emergency assistance, such as pulling a person from a
potentially exploding automobile or a burning building.
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.
The Court's Narrow Statutory Interpretation In Van Horn Raised
Some Concerns Within Local Government About Whether Disaster
Service Workers' Immunity Could Inappropriately and
Inadvertently Be Interpreted Too Narrowly . The Court's
statutory interpretation in Van Horn turned in part on
construing the language of the statute in context, and
harmonizing it with other provisions related to the same subject
matter to the extent possible. For example, the Court found
that since the Good Samaritan statute (Health and Safety Code
section 1799.102) was located in a code section entitled
"Emergency Medical Services," it must refer only to medical
care.
Supporter, the City of Beverly Hills, had some concerns after
the Van Horn decision that this same reasoning might
inadvertently limit disaster service workers' immunity as well.
In this case, the existing statutory provision providing
immunity to disaster service workers is located at the end of
Civil Code section 1714.5; the first part of that statute
provides immunity to those who own or maintain disaster
shelters. City of Beverly Hills states, "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."
The City of Beverly Hills was thus - prior to this measure's
helpful statutory clarifications - concerned that a court might
somehow limit a disaster service worker's immunity to contexts
involving a disaster shelter, since the immunity for disaster
service workers directly follows the immunity for disaster
shelters, within the same statute. In order to address this
SB 39
Page 5
concern, this bill provides that the immunity provided to a
disaster service worker applies when the worker is performing
disaster services "anywhere within any jurisdiction covered by
the emergency" and "notwithstanding any other provision of law."
Author's Technical Amendment : In order to clarify that the
immunity provided disaster service workers logically covers all
those jurisdictions affected by the emergency, the author has
agreed to amend the bill at page 3, line 6 as follows:
anywhere within the any jurisdiction covered by such emergency
PRIOR LEGISLATION : AB 83 (Feuer) 2009: Torts: Personal
liability immunity. Provides that no person who in good faith
and not for compensation renders emergency medical or
non-medical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable
for civil damages resulting from any act or omission unless the
act or omission was not in good faith (for medical, law
enforcement, and emergency personnel) or unless the act or
omission constituted gross negligence (for any other "layperson"
volunteer).
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION :
Support:
City of Beverly Hills
Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
National Ski Patrol
Opposition :
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Rachel Anderson / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334