In today's litigious society, there can be a reluctance to help out in emergency situations.

Fear of liability for any misstep can paralyze even the

most helpful good Samaritan.
The truth is that each state has laws or regulations to protect the general public from liability during rescues or rescue attempts. Specifics about
your state should be discussed with a legal expert or attorney from your area.*
Good Samaritan laws are meant to protect those who come to the aid of others for no other reason than kindness. Good Samaritan laws only help
if the rescuer (or would-be rescuer) is acting without any expectation of reward. In other words, if you are getting paid to rescue then you aren't a
good Samaritan. Paid rescuers are expected to do their jobs correctly and can be held accountable for mistakes.
Depending on the state, getting rewarded after the fact can also count as expectation of reward. If you help someone at a car accident and then are
rewarded monetarily or otherwise, you may be excluded from good Samaritan protection.
In some states, good Samaritan laws only cover medically trained rescuers, while other states extend protection to the general public. The good
Samaritan concept is commonly applied in the courts, which means a case going that far may still be ruled in favor of the rescuer who was trying
to help. What good Samaritan laws do for rescuers is provide a get-out-of-court-free card. In other words, unpaid rescuers may prevail in court
with or without a good Samaritan law, but it's a lot cheaper if they have the protection.
The best way to protect yourself from possible liability when helping others is to always act on behalf of the victim. That may sound obvious, but
if your motivation is to be a hero and not to help out a fellow human, then you risk making the types of mistakes not covered by good Samaritan
laws.
Here are some good tips for staying out of court:

Take a CPR and first aid class

Follow your training

Use common sense

Don't do anything you're not trained to do

Get professional help for the victim

Do not accept gifts or rewards

Good Samaritan laws do not protect you from everything. It is human nature to make mistakes. Good Samaritan laws take this into account and
protect helpful citizens if the mistakes made are reasonable.
Since defining "reasonable" is so difficult -- even those covered under the good Samaritan law may find themselves defending a lawsuit. One
example is what happened to California's good Samaritan law. A woman pulled an accident victim from a car following an accident. She followed
the typical tests: she didn't plan on getting any sort of reward and she acted in the best interests of the victim. Despite the fact that she should have
been covered under typical good Samaritan doctrine and definitely should have fallen into California's good Samaritan law, she was sued.
The case in California led to a complete rewrite of California's Good Sam law. Usually, good Samaritan lawys work just like they're supposed to.
Most lawyers make judgments about when to file lawsuits based on an examination of their return on investment. Since the plaintiff doesn't
usually pay up front, the lawyer must decide to take the case on contingency. That means "reasonable" is defined by the lawyer. Believe it or not,
that's good. It means those lawsuits that will most likely lose in court won't ever get there.
Following these tips might help you stay out of bad situations even as you help others get out of theirs.
*This article is not intended to serve as legal advice.
Good Samaritan law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Duty to rescue.
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the

issue on the talk page. (December 2009)

Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise
incapacitated. In some cases, Good Samaritan laws encourage people to offer assistance (duty to rescue).[1] The protection is intended to reduce
bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.
An example of the obligation to help a person is the Argentinian law on "abandonment of persons", Articles 106-108 of the Argentine Penal
Code, which includes the provision in Article 106 that "a person who endangers the life or health of another, either by putting a person in
jeopardy or abandoning to their fate a person unable to cope alone who must be cared for ... will be imprisoned for between 2 and 6 years"
[emphasis added].[2]
An example of legal protection without obligation to act: in common-law areas of Canada a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that
prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people
from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment. [3]
Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as do their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental
rights and the informed refusal#right to refuse treatment. Most such laws do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders'
on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.
The principles contained in good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English
Common Law, such as Australia.[4] In many countries that use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more
typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.
Good Samaritan laws take their name from a parable found in the Bible, attributed to Jesus, commonly referred to as the Parable of the Good
Samaritan which is contained in Luke 10:25-37. It recounts the aid given by a traveler from the area known as Samaria to another traveler of a
conflicting religious and ethnic background who had been beaten and robbed by bandits. [5]
Regions
Canada
In Canada, good Samaritan acts fall under provincial jurisdiction. Each province has its own act, such as Ontario[6] and British Columbia's[7]
respective Good Samaritan Acts, Alberta's Emergency Medical Aid Act,[8] and Nova Scotia's Volunteer Services Act[9] Only in Quebec, a civil law
jurisdiction, does a person have a general duty to respond, as detailed in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.[10][11]
An example of a typical Canadian law is provided here, from Ontario's Good Samaritan Act, 2001, section 2:
Protection from liability
2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation
or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing
to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).
[12]

New Brunswick and Nunavut do not have good Samaritan laws.

China

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message
until the dispute is resolved. (July 2014)

China is notorious for its poor treatment of good Samaritans. There have been incidents in China, such as the Peng Yu incident in 2006,[13][14]
where good Samaritans who helped people injured in accidents were accused of having injured the victim themselves.
The death of Wang Yue was caused when the toddler was run over by two vehicles. The entire incident was caught on a video, which shows
eighteen people seeing the child but refusing to help. In a November 2011 survey, a majority, 71%, thought that the people who passed the child
without helping were afraid of getting into trouble themselves.[15]

According to China Daily, "at least 10 Party and government departments and organizations in Guangdong, including the province's commission
on politics and law, the women's federation, the Academy of Social Sciences, and the Communist Youth League, have started discussions on
punishing those who refuse to help people who clearly need it." [16] Officials of Guangdong province, along with many lawyers and social workers,
also held three days of meetings in the provincial capital of Guangzhou to discuss the case. It was reported that various lawmakers of the province
are drafting a good Samaritan law, which would "penalize people who fail to help in a situation of this type and indemnify them from lawsuits if
their efforts are in vain."[17] Legal experts and the public are debating the idea ahead of discussions and a legislative push. [18] On 1 August 2013,
the nation's first good Samaritan law went into effect in Shenzhen.[19]
Europe
Laws in North America mainly shield from liability those who choose to help in a situation they did not cause; laws in much of Europe [where?] and
other countries[which?] criminalize failure to help in such a situation:[20] people in such countries[which?] who do not help someone in peril may be
prosecuted.[21]
Germany
In Germany, failure to provide first aid to a person in need is punishable under 323c of its criminal penal code. However, any help one provides
can and will not be prosecuted even if it made the situation worse or did not fulfill specific first aid criteria. People are thus encouraged to help in
any way possible, even if the attempt is not successful.[22]
Finland
The Finnish Rescue Act explicitly stipulates a duty to rescue as a "general duty to act" and "engage in rescue activities according to [one's]
abilities". The Finnish Rescue Act thus includes a principle of proportionality which requires professionals to extend immediate aid further than
lay persons. Failure to rescue is punishable by the Finnish penal code, section 21, 15 .[23]
Ireland
The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2011[24] first introduced legislation specifically addressing the liability of citizen Good
samaritans or volunteers in the Republic of Ireland, without introducing a duty to intervene. This Act provides for exemption from liability for a
person, or voluntary organisation, for anything done while providing "assistance, advice or care" to a person who is injured, in serious risk or
danger of becoming injured or suffering from an illness (or apparently so). There are exclusions for cases of "bad faith" or "gross negligence" on
behalf of the carer, and incidents relating to negligent use of motor vehicles. This Act only addresses situations where there is no duty of care
owed by the good Samaritan or the volunteer.
Israel
In Israel, the law requires anyone to assist a person in danger or at the very least call for help. People who help in good faith are not liable for
damages. Helpers are eligible for compensation for damages caused to them during their assistance.
United States
The details of good Samaritan laws/acts vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected from liability and under what circumstances. [25] Not all
jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, instead protecting only trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses and perhaps also emergency
services personnel such as trained police, fire and EMS workers.[26]
Australia
Most Australian states and territories have some form of good Samaritan protection. In general these offer protection if care is made in good faith,
and the "good Samaritan" is not impaired by drugs or alcohol. Variations exist between states, from not applying if the "good Samaritan" is the
cause of the problem (NSW), to applying under all circumstances if the attempt is made in good faith (VIC). [27]
Common features
In some jurisdictions, unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or
the "good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim. Good
Samaritan statutes in the states of Minnesota and Vermont do require a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a
person in need.[28] This assistance may be to call 9-1-1. Violation of the duty-to-assist subdivision is a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota and may
warrant a fine of up to $100 in Vermont. At least five other states, including California and Nevada, have seriously considered adding duty-toassist subdivisions to their good Samaritan statutes.[29] New York's law provides immunity for those who assist in an emergency.[30] The public
policy behind the law is:

The furnishing of medical assistance in an emergency is a matter of vital concern affecting the public health, safety and welfare. Prehospital
emergency medical care, the provision of prompt and effective communication among ambulances and hospitals[,] and safe and effective care
and transportation of the sick and injured are essential public health services.
Good Samaritan provisions are not universal in application. The legal principle of imminent peril may also apply.[31] In the absence of imminent
peril, the actions of a rescuer may be perceived by the courts to be reckless and not worthy of protection. To illustrate, a motor vehicle collision
occurs, but there is no fire, no immediate life threat from injuries and no danger of a second collision. If someone, with good intentions, causes
injury by pulling the victim from the wreckage, a court may rule that good Samaritan laws do not apply because the victim was not in imminent
peril and hold the actions of the rescuer to be unnecessary and reckless. [32][33]
Only first aid provided without intention of reward or financial compensation is covered. Medical professionals are typically not protected by
good Samaritan laws when performing first aid in connection with their employment. [34] Some states make specific provisions for trained medical
professionals acting as volunteers and for members of volunteer rescue squads acting without expectation of remuneration. [30][35] In Texas, a
physician who voluntarily assisted in the delivery of an infant, and who proved that he had "no expectation of remuneration", had no liability for
the infant's injuries due to allegedly ordinary negligence; there was "uncontroverted testimony that neither he nor any doctor in Travis County
would have charged a fee to [the mother] or any other person under the circumstances of this case." [36] It was significant that the doctor was not an
employee of the attending physician, but was only visiting the hospital and had responded to a "Dr. Stork" page, and had not asked or expected to
be paid.[36]
If a responder begins rendering aid, he must not leave the scene until it is necessary to call for needed medical assistance, a rescuer of equal or
higher ability takes over, or continuing to give aid is unsafe. This can be as simple as a lack of adequate protection against potential diseases, such
as vinyl, latex, or nitrile gloves to protect against blood-borne pathogens. A responder is never legally compelled to take risks to aid another
person. The responder is not legally liable for any harm to the person assisted, as long as the responder acted rationally, in good faith and in
accordance with their level of training.[37]
Consent
The responder must obtain the consent of the patient, or of the legal guardian of a patient who is a minor, unless this is not possible; failing to do
so may attract a charge of assault or battery.
Implied consent
Main article: Implied consent
Consent may be implied if an unattended patient is unconscious, delusional, intoxicated or deemed mentally unfit to make decisions regarding his
or her safety, or if the responder has a reasonable belief that this was so; courts tend to be very forgiving in adjudicating this, under the legal
fiction that "peril invites rescue" (as in the rescue doctrine).[38] The test in most jurisdictions is that of the "average, reasonable person". To
illustrate, would the average, reasonable person in any of the states described above consent to receiving assistance in these circumstances if able
to make a decision?
Consent may also be implied if the legal parent or guardian is not immediately reachable and the patient is not considered an adult.
Parental consent
If the victim is a minor, consent must come from a parent or guardian. However, if the legal parent or guardian is absent, unconscious, delusional
or intoxicated, consent is implied. A responder is not required to withhold life-saving treatment (e.g., CPR or the Heimlich maneuver) from a
minor if the parent or guardian will not consent.[citation needed] The parent or guardian is then considered neglecting, and consent for treatment is
implied by default because neglect has been committed. Special circumstances may exist if child abuse is suspected (the courts will usually give
immunity to those first responders who report what they reasonably consider to be evidence of child abuse or neglect, similar to that given to
those who have an actual duty to report such abuse, such as teachers or counselors).[39]
Laws for first responders only
In some jurisdictions,[which?] good Samaritan laws only protect those who have completed basic first aid training and are certified by health
organizations, such as the American Heart Association, or American Red Cross, provided that they have acted within the scope of their training.
[40]
In these jurisdictions, a person who is neither trained in first aid nor certified, and who performs first aid incorrectly, can be held legally liable
for errors made. In other jurisdictions any rescuer is protected from liability so long as the responder acted rationally.[citation needed] In Florida,
paramedics, EMTs, and Emergency Medical Responders (First Responders) are required by law to act under the Duty to Act law, which requires
them to stop and give aid that falls within their practice.[citation needed]
Comparison with duty to rescue

Good Samaritan laws may be confused with the duty to rescue, as described above. U.S. and Canadian approaches to this issue differ. Under the
common law, good Samaritan laws provide a defence against torts arising from the attempted rescue. Such laws do not constitute a duty to rescue,
such as exists in some civil law countries,[41] and in the common law under certain circumstances. However, the duty to rescue where it exists may
itself imply a shield from liability; for example, under the German law of "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (an offense not to provide first aid when
necessary), a citizen is obliged to provide first aid when necessary and is immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith turns out to
be harmful. In Canada, all provinces with the exception of Quebec operate on the basis of English Common Law. Quebec operates a civil law
system, based in part on the Napoleonic Code, and the principle of duty to rescue does apply.[42] Similarly, in France anyone who fails to render
assistance to a person in danger will be found liable before French Courts (civil and criminal liability). The penalty for this offence in criminal
courts is imprisonment and a fine (under article 2236 of the Criminal Code) while in civil courts judges will order payment of pecuniary
compensation to the victims.[43]
To illustrate a variation in the concept of duty to rescue, in the Canadian province of Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act provides all
workers with the right to refuse to perform unsafe work. There are, however, specific exceptions to this right. When the "life, health or safety of
another person is at risk," then specific groups, including "police officers, firefighters, or employees of a hospital, clinic or other type of medical
worker (including EMS)" are specifically excluded from the right to refuse unsafe work. [44]
In popular culture
A Good Samaritan law was featured in the May 1998 series finale of the popular NBC situation comedy Seinfeld, in which the show's four main
characters were all prosecuted and sentenced to one year in jail for making fun of (rather than helping) a fat man (John Pinette) who was getting
robbed at gunpoint.[45] In reality, while Massachusetts (where the fictional crime was committed) does have a law requiring passersby to report a
crime in progress, the most stringent punishment the characters could have suffered under those circumstances would have been a $5002,500
fine (assuming they were prosecuted under state law); however, the sentence couldn't have resulted in the telling of all of the other horrible things
described by the witnesses: In addition, the phrase "good Samaritan law," when used in Massachusetts, refers only to the civil law definition and
does not have any actual relevance to the law under which Jerry Seinfeld and his friends were prosecuted (which would be considered a duty to
rescue).[46]
References and notes
1.
2.

3.

DAN Legal Network: The Good Samaritan Law across Europe

Argentine Penal Code laws regarding crimes against the person (Spanish) Original of text translated in the article: "el que
pusiere en peligro la vida o la salud de otro, sea colocndolo en situacin de desamparo, sea abandonando a su suerte a una persona
incapaz de valerse y a la que deba mantener o cuidar o a la que el mismo autor haya incapacitado, ser reprimido con prisin de 2 a 6
aos".
"Canadian Law website 1". Retrieved 2008-10-16.