Good Samaritan Law: Impact on Physician Rescuers

Wyoming Law Review, Oct 2017

By Vincent C. Thomas, Published on 01/01/17

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://repository.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=wlr

Good Samaritan Law: Impact on Physician Rescuers

Good Samaritan Law: Impact on Physician Rescuers Number SPECIAL SECTION: Energy Law Vincent C. Thom Recommended Citation Vincent C. Thom as, Good Samaritan Law: Impact on Physician Rescuers, 17 Wyo. L. Rev. 149 (2016). Available at: https://repository.uwyo.edu/wlr/vol17/iss1/7 Article 7 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uwyo.edu/wlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation VOLUME 17 2017 NUMBER 1 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW: IMPACT ON PHYSICIAN RESCUERS Vincent C. Thomas* CONCLUSION ....................................................... 167 I. INTRODUCTION The intent of Good Samaritan legislation is to protect persons who respond to an emergency from civil liability. It helps encourage those who are at the scene of an emergency situation to help those in need of assistance without the fear * Vincent C. Thomas, MD, MHA is a medical doctor specializing in pediatric cardiology and electrophysiology and an associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center with a master's degree in healthcare administration. Dr. Thomas would like to thank Professor Stacey Tovino for her guidance and review of this paper. Dr. Thomas would also like to thank Alysia Goldman and Al Walsh for their critical review and suggestions. of legal ramifications in the future-thereby removing barriers to immediate emergency care. However, Good Samaritan legislation is fragmented because each state employs different protections for different groups. As a result, barriers to immediate emergency care are still present, depending on the state in which an emergency provider delivers care. This is particularly true on the part of medical professionals as their standard of care is judged above that of the general public, regardless ofwhether the emergency occurs inside or outside of the hospital setting. The lack of uniformity in state Good Samaritan legislation leads to barriers in the treatment of emergency victims and is in direct contrast to legislative intent and public health initiatives. The rationale for uniform Good Samaritan law will be reviewed as well as the basic components of uniform legislation. Commentary on how the lack of uniformity affects physicians along with descriptions of case law will further illustrate the need for uniformity in Good Samaritan legislation. II. RATIONALE FOR GOOD SAMARITAN LAWS The rationale for Good Samaritan law finds its basis in common law: According to the California Court of Appeal in Colby v. SchwartzOne who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking.' Thus, at common law, a physician could with legal impunity refuse to aid a stranger in need of immediate medical care. But a physician who stopped and gave aid created a doctor-patient relationship and thereby assumed a duty of reasonable care towards the patient. Further, under the exigent circumstances of this type of medical care, the quality and quantity of a physician's treatment is necessarily reduced. As a result, the chances of medical failure are increased. Thus, notwithstanding a best efforts attempt, a physician who rendered emergency medical care became the natural target of malpractice actions.2 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965). 2 Colby v. Schwartz, 78 Cal. App. 3d 885, 890 (1978). GOOD SAMARYTAN LAW: IMPACT ON PHYSICIAN RESCUERS In 1959, California became the first state to adopt a Good Samaritan statute immunizing from tort liability a physician who "in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency." 3 As stated in Velazquez v. Jiminez: In sum, Good Samaritan legislation has, at its core, the goal of encouraging the rendering of medical care to those who need it but otherwise might not receive it (ordinarily roadside accident victims), by persons who come upon such victims by chance, without the accoutrements provided in a medical facility, including expertise, assistance, sanitation or equipment.' In Childs v. Weis, the court states "[a] physician is under no legal obligation to practice his profession or render services to whomsoever may request them."' For physicians and other healthcare professionals, the engagement as a rescuer with a victim in need may imply the physician-patient relationship. According to a comprehensive review of Good Samaritan laws by law Professor Victoria Sutton, the rendering of emergency services by a rescuer establishes the physicianpatient relationship in 48 states.' As a result, depending on the protections of the various Good Samaritan state laws, physicians who act may establish a physicianpatient relationship and b (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://repository.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=wlr

Vincent C. Thomas. Good Samaritan Law: Impact on Physician Rescuers, Wyoming Law Review, 2017, Volume 17, Issue 1,