GOOD SAMARITAN LAWS

INDIANA LAWS

"No person licensed under this chapter, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care."

INDIANA GOOD SAMARITAN LAWS

34-30-12-1. Immunity for providing emergency care.

(a) This section does not apply to services rendered by a health care provider (as defined in IC 34-18-2-14 or IC 27-12-2-14 before its repeal) to a patient in a health care facility (as defined in IC 27-8-10-1).

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who comes upon the scene of an emergency or accident or is summoned to the scene of an emergency or accident and, in good faith, gratuitously renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency or accident is immune from civil liability for any personal injury that results from:

(1) any act or omission by the person in rendering the emergency care; or

(2) any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person; except for acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

(c) This subsection applies to a person to whom IC 16-31-6.5 applies. A person who gratuitously renders emergency care involving the use of an automatic external defibrillator is immune from liability for any act or omission not amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct if the person fulfills the requirements set forth in IC 16-31-6.5.

(d) This subsection applies to an individual, business, or organization to which IC 16-31-6.5 applies. An individual, business, or organization that allows a person who is an expected user to use an automatic external defibrillator of the individual, business, or organization to in good faith gratuitously render emergency care is immune from civil liability for any damages resulting from an act or omission not amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct by the user or for acquiring or providing the automatic external defibrillator to the user for the purpose of rendering the emergency care if the individual, business, or organization and the user fulfill the requirements set forth in IC 16-31-6.5.

(e) A licensed physician who gives medical direction in the use of a defibrillator or a national or state approved defibrillator instructor of a person who gratuitously renders emergency care involving the use of an automatic external defibrillator is immune from civil liability for any act or omission of the licensed physician or instructor if the act or omission of the licensed physician or instructor:

(1) involves the training for or use of an automatic external defibrillator; and

(2) does not amount to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

KENTUCKY LAWS

"No person licensed under this chapter, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care."

KENTUCKY GOOD SAMARITAN LAWS

311.667.  Requirements for person or entity acquiring an automated external defibrillator.

In order to ensure public health and safety:

(1) A person or entity who acquires an AED shall ensure that:

(a) Expected AED users receive American Heart Association or American Red Cross training in CPR and AED use, or an equivalent nationally recognized course in CPR and AED use;

(b) The AED is maintained and tested according to the manufacturer’s operational guidelines;

(c) There is medical oversight of the AED program by a physician licensed in Kentucky to ensure compliance with requirements for training, maintenance, notification, and communication with the local emergency medical services system. The physician providing oversight shall also work with the AED site to establish protocols for AED deployment and conduct a review of each use of an AED; and

(d) Any person who renders emergency care or treatment on a person in cardiac arrest by using an AED activates the local emergency medical services system as soon as possible and, if an entity with an AED program, reports any clinical use of the AED to the licensed physician.

(2) Any person or entity who acquires an AED shall notify an agent of the local emergency medical services system and the local emergency communications or vehicle dispatch center of the existence, location, and type of AED acquired.

311.668.  Immunity from civil liability for user of automated external defibrillator — Exemption from KRS 311.667 for Good Samaritan.

(1) Any person or entity who, in good faith and without compensation, renders emergency care or treatment by the use of an AED shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury as a result of the care or treatment, or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment, where the person acts as an ordinary, reasonable prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

(2) The immunity from civil liability for any personal injury under subsection (1) of this section includes the licensed physician who is involved with AED site placement, the person or entity who provides the CPR and AED site placement, the person or entity who provides the CPR and AED training, and the person or entity responsible for the site where the AED is located.

(3) The immunity from civil liability under subsection (1) of this section does not apply if the personal injury results from the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the person rendering the emergency care.

(4) The requirements of KRS 311.667 shall not apply to any individual using an AED in an emergency setting if that individual is acting as a Good Samaritan under KRS 411.148 and KRS 313.257.

KRS § 313.257  (2009)

313.257. Nonliability of licensees for emergency care.

No person licensed under this chapter, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care.

KRS § 411.148  (2009)

411.148. Nonliability of licensees and certified technicians for emergency care.

(1) No physician licensed under KRS Chapter 311, registered or practical nurse licensed under KRS Chapter 314, person certified as an emergency medical technician by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, person certified by the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or employee of any board of education established pursuant to the provision of KRS 160.160, who has completed a course in first aid and who maintains current certification therein in accordance with the standards set forth by the American Red Cross shall be liable in civil damages for administering emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place having proper medical equipment excluding house calls, for acts performed at the scene of such emergency, unless such acts constitute willful or wanton misconduct.

(2) Nothing in this section applies to the administering of such care or treatment where the same is rendered for remuneration or with the expectation of remuneration.

(3) The administering of emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency by employees of a board of education shall not be considered to be rendered for remuneration or with the expectation of remuneration because such personnel perform such care as part of their regular professional or work responsibilities for which they receive their regular salaries from the school board which is their employer.

GOOD SAMARITAN LAWS

Brian West, Matthew Varacallo

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542176/

The premise underlying the good Samaritan law traces its origin to the ancient biblical parable, ultimately yielding the definition of a good Samaritan as an individual who intervenes to assist another individual without prior notion or responsibility or promise of compensation.[1]

Good Samaritan laws have their basis on the idea that consensus agreement favors good "public policy" to limit liability for those who voluntarily perform care and rescue in emergency situations.  It is well known that medical emergencies outside of the umbrella "medical setting" or "clinical environment" are common.[2]  Thus, in theory and principle, we are improved as a society if the potential rescuers (i.e., the good Samaritans) are solely concerned about helping a person in need as opposed to worrying about the possible liability associated with assisting their fellow man or woman. 

The general principle of most versions of the good Samaritan law provides protection from claims of negligence for those who provide care without expectation of payment. The good Samaritan laws also further public policy because few jurisdictions have created an affirmative duty for a medical professional to provide care in the absence of an established patient relationship. Each state has its version(s) of the law, and federal laws also exist for individual circumstances.

It is worth noting that other countries besides the United States of America (USA) have differing laws, opinions, and regulations regarding the good Samaritan scenarios. Most have no legal obligation to treat.  Many western countries recognize the moral duty to stop and render treatment rather than a legal requirement.[3] In the USA, all 50 states have good Samaritan laws. Provisions of these laws have minor variations from state to state.[2]  The tort system in the United States is unique; therefore, the concept of liability differs from country to country.[4]

In legal terms, a good Samaritan is anyone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured or ill person.  Generally, if the victim is unconscious or unresponsive, a good Samaritan can help them on the grounds of implied consent.  If the person is conscious and can reasonably respond, a would-be rescuer should ask permission first. 

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have a good Samaritan law, in addition to Federal laws for specific circumstances. Many good Samaritan laws were initially written to protect physicians from liability when rendering care outside their usual clinical setting. The details of good Samaritan laws vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected (physicians, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders) from liability and under what circumstances.  In general, these laws do not protect medical personnel from liability if acting in the course of their usual profession.

Good Samaritan laws give liability protection against "ordinary negligence." Ordinary negligence is the failure to act as a reasonably prudent person. It is the failure to exercise such care as the great mass of humanity ordinarily applies under the same or similar circumstances. 

These laws do not protect against "gross negligence" or willful actions.  Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

For good Samaritan laws to be applicable for physicians (and other health care providers), certain conditions must apply.  There must exist no duty to treat.   For this reason, this protection does not typically apply to on-call physicians.[5] Therefore, any physician with a pre-existing relationship with the patient cannot be considered a good Samaritan. Another exclusion to almost all state statutes is that the physician or other health care provider providing aid cannot receive compensation for their care.  If one receives any remuneration for helping in rendering emergency care, they can no longer be considered a good Samaritan, and therefore, the protections no longer apply.

Good Samaritan laws typically do not legally protect on-duty doctors.  However, there have been cases in the hospital setting when a physician has been deemed a good Samaritan and afforded the protection of these laws.[5] Two separate examples in Michigan determined that surgeons who were not on call but contacted by the emergency department to help a patient were not held liable for poor outcomes due to good Samaritan protection.[5] Conversely, another ruling in New Jersey adopted the position that, in all instances, “the protection of the Good Samaritan Act stops at the door of the hospital.”[5] These cases serve to illustrate the variability not only from state to state but also from situation to situation.   Another striking example of this variability is that all states except Kentucky have statutory language providing immunity to physicians licensed in any other state as well.[6] Therefore, the degree of reciprocal immunity can also vary from state to state. 

One area of recent interest and legislation relates to the current opioid crisis. Drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in the United States.[7] The most common drugs associated with these overdoses are opioids.  As a result, 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted good Samaritan laws specific to this issue. These laws intend to reduce the number of overdoses by encouraging both victims and witnesses to call 911 by granting a certain degree of immunity. This immunity may come in the form of not being charged with a drug-related offense or receiving a reduced sentence.[7] For instance, in Washington state, a law was passed in 2010 to encourage more people to call for medical care after a suspected overdose. After the passage of this law, both EMS personnel and police regarded the care of the patient as a top priority versus the need for drug confiscation and arrest.[8] The generally accepted is that this type of caller immunity will lead to more lives saved, and the enactment of additional targeted laws such as these will likely take place in the future.

Most good Samaritan laws do not apply to medical professionals or career emergency responders during on-the-job conduct. However, some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.[6]

Research shows that increasing physician awareness of these protections increases the likelihood to help. In one study of residents and fellows, roughly half the respondents reported being present at a medical emergency outside the work setting.  The majority indicated that they experienced reluctance to help because of concerns about liability exposure outside of the clinical setting. After being educated about good Samaritan laws, most indicated they would be more likely to assist if they had a prior understanding of these laws.  An overwhelming majority requested this information to be part of their medical education. They further indicated this additional education would increase their likelihood to offer assistance in these instances.[2] There is a myriad of situations and locations that a good Samaritan could be needed.  The most common locations being sports and entertainment events (25%), road traffic accidents (21%), and wilderness settings (19%).[9]

There has been a recent push to establish so-called "bad Samaritan" laws. These laws essentially establish a duty to aid those in need.  These laws are not strictly applicable to health care providers.  Three states – Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont – impose a broad obligation to rescue individuals in an emergency.  While, Hawaii, Washington, and Wisconsin, have legislated the duty to report crimes to authorities.  However, these laws have not had vigorous enforcement.  Also, many states require healthcare providers to report certain kinds of criminal acts, such as gunshot wounds and child abuse.  A few states require healthcare professionals to stop and render aid during an emergency; this only applies if helping a victim can be accomplished without placing themselves in danger.[10]

Although the vast majority of good Samaritan laws are state laws, one particularly applicable federal law involving physicians and other health care providers is the 1998 Aviation MedicalAssistance Act (AMAA). This law provides coverage for "good Samaritans" while in flight (Section 5b).[11] On airplanes, the AMAA protects those physicians and other health care professionals (HCP), acting in good Samaritan roles on airlines registered in the United States.[6]

The 1998 Aviation Medical Assistance Act provides liability protection for a healthcare professional acting as a good Samaritan. Nevertheless, HCPs may initially experience trepidation providing care in an aircraft. They may be unaware that a first aid kit, an emergency medical kit, and an automatic external defibrillator are available on every plane. Flight crews training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and a support system, including a ground-based consultation service, provides radio assistance from an on-call physician.[12]

The most common inflight emergencies involve syncope or near-syncope (32.7%), gastrointestinal (14.8%), respiratory (10.1%), and cardiovascular (7.0%) symptoms. Diversion of the aircraft from landing at the scheduled destination to a different airport because of a medical emergency occurs in an estimated 4.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-4.6%) of inflight emergencies.[11] Minimum requirements for onboard emergency medical kit equipment in the United States include an automated external defibrillator, equipment to obtain a basic assessment, hemorrhage control, initiation of an intravenous line, and medications to treat basic conditions. Other countries have different minimum medical kit standards, and individual airlines can expand the contents of their medical kit.[11]

Although the primary intent of good Samaritan laws is clear, the real-world application can be quite different.  All health care providers should familiarize themselves with the specific laws and protections in their state.  However, as this article illustrates, when flying or traveling in other municipalities, some unique responsibilities and coverages exist.  When unsure of the local liability protections, one may simply want to do as the good Samaritan did.

1. Garneau WM, Harris DM, Viera AJ. Cross-sectional survey of Good Samaritan behaviour by physicians in North Carolina. BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 10;6(3):e010720. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

2. Adusumalli J, Benkhadra K, Murad MH. Good Samaritan Laws and Graduate Medical Education: A Tristate Survey. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Dec;2(4):336-341. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

3. McQuoid-Mason DJ. When are doctors legally obliged to stop and render assistance to injured persons at road accidents? S Afr Med J. 2016 May 08;106(6) [PubMed]

4. Ronquillo Y, Pesce MB, Varacallo M. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Jul 3, 2023. Tort. [PubMed]

5. Brown OW. Good Samaritan statutes: a malpractice defense for "doing the right thing". J Vasc Surg. 2010 Jun;51(6):1572-3. [PubMed]

6. Stewart PH, Agin WS, Douglas SP. What does the law say to Good Samaritans?: A review of Good Samaritan statutes in 50 states and on US airlines. Chest. 2013 Jun;143(6):1774-1783. [PubMed]

7. Nguyen H, Parker BR. Assessing the effectiveness of New York's 911 Good Samaritan Law-Evidence from a natural experiment. Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Aug;58:149-156. [PubMed]

8. Banta-Green CJ, Beletsky L, Schoeppe JA, Coffin PO, Kuszler PC. Police officers' and paramedics' experiences with overdose and their knowledge and opinions of Washington State's drug overdose-naloxone-Good Samaritan law. J Urban Health. 2013 Dec;90(6):1102-11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

9. Burkholder TW, King RA. Emergency Physicians as Good Samaritans: Survey of Frequency, Locations, Supplies and Medications. West J Emerg Med. 2016 Jan;17(1):15-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

10. Mackay TR, Starr KT. Can you risk being a Good Samaritan? Nursing. 2019 Mar;49(3):14. [PubMed]

11. Martin-Gill C, Doyle TJ, Yealy DM. In-Flight Medical Emergencies: A Review. JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320(24):2580-2590. [PubMed]

12. de Caprariis PJ, de Caprariis-Salerno A, Lyon C. Healthcare Professionals and In-Flight Medical Emergencies: Resources, Responsibilities, Goals, and Legalities as a Good Samaritan. South Med J. 2019 Jan;112(1):60-65. [PubMed]

TOP