GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE
A principle of TORT LAW that provides that a person who sees another individual in imminent and serious danger or peril cannot be charged with NEGLIGENCE if that first person attempts to aid or rescue the injured party, provided the attempt is not made recklessly.
The Good Samaritan doctrine is used by res-
cuers to avoid civil liability for injuries arising
from their negligence. Its purpose is to encourage emergency assistance by removing the threat of liability for damage done by the assistance.
However, the assistance must be reasonable; a
rescuer cannot benefit from the Good Samari-
tan doctrine if the assistance is reckless or
grossly negligent.
Three key elements support a successful
invocation of the Good Samaritan doctrine: (1)
the care rendered was performed as the result of
the emergency, (2) the initial emergency or
injury was not caused by the person invoking
the defense, and (3) the emergency care was not
given in a grossly negligent or reckless manner.
Assume that a person has slipped on ice and
broken a vertebra. The victim is unconscious,
the accident has occurred in a desolate area, and
the weather is dangerously cold.A passerby finds
the injured person and moves the person to
warmth and safety, but in the process aggravates
the spinal injury. In a civil suit by the victim
seeking damages for the additional injury, the
passerby may successfully defeat the claims
under the Good Samaritan doctrine.
The Good Samaritan doctrine is also used as
a defense by persons who act to prevent or con-
tain property damage. Assume that a passerby
notices a fire has started just outside a cabin in
the wilderness. If the passerby breaks into the
cabin to look for a fire extinguisher, the passerby
will not be liable for damage resulting from the
forced entry. However, if the passerby runs
down the cabin with a bulldozer to extinguish
the fire, this will probably be considered grossly
negligent or reckless, and the Good Samaritan
doctrine will not provide protection from a civil
suit for damages to the cabin.
The line separating negligence from gross
negligence or recklessness is often thin.Harding-
ham v. United Counseling Service of Bennington
County, 672 A. 2d 480 (Vt. 1995), illustrates the
negligent acts that the Good Samaritan doctrine
protects. In this case, the plaintiff, David Hard-
ingham, sued United Counseling Service (UCS)
when he became blind after drinking windshield
wiper fluid.Hardingham, a recovering alcoholic,
was employed by UCS as an emergency services
counselor. When Hardingham began drinking
again, employees of UCS went to his apartment
and discovered him in an inebriated condition.
During their visit, they saw Hardingham drink
windshield wiper fluid. They called the police,
who took Hardingham to a hospital. At the hos-
pital, none of the UCS workers informed med-
ical authorities that Hardingham had drunk the
dangerous fluid. Doctors did not learn until the
next day that Hardingham had overdosed on
methanol, a component of windshield wiper
fluid, and Hardingham eventually lost his sight.
Hardingham never got a chance to present
his case to a jury. The Chittenden Superior
Court granted SUMMARY JUDGMENT to UCS,
holding that there was insufficient evidence to
support an allegation of gross negligence by the
organization. The Supreme Court of Vermont
affirmed this decision. According to the court,
the actions of the defendants “probably saved
plaintiff ’s life.” Although the defendants may
have been negligent in failing to disclose that
Hardingham had swallowed enough methanol
to threaten his life, “no reasonable person could
conclude that defendants showed indifference to
plaintiff or failed to exercise even a slight degree
of care.”
Justice John Dooley dissented, arguing that
the case presented a QUESTION OF FACT for a jury
to decide. The defendants “failed to tell the emer-
gency room physician the most significant fact
that wasn’t obvious from plaintiff ’s condition
—that plaintiff had consumed windshield wiper
fluid.” Dooley lamented that “the greatest diffi-
culty plaintiff faces in this case is to persuade us
to accept that ‘good samaritans’ should ever be
liable.”
Section 324 of the Second Restatement of
Torts describes the Good Samaritan doctrine in
an inverse fashion. According to section 324, a
person is subject to liability for physical harm
resulting from the failure to exercise reasonable
care if the failure increases the risk of harm, if
the rescuer has a duty to render care, or if others
are relying on the rescuer.
Many states are content to follow the Good
Samaritan doctrine through their COMMON LAW
or through similar previous cases. Some states
have general statutes mandating the doctrine.
Utah, for example, has a Good Samaritan act,
which provides in part that [a] person who renders emergency care at or
near the scene of, or during an emergency,
gratuitously and in GOOD FAITH, is not
liable for any civil damages or penalties as a
result of any act or omission by the person
rendering the emergency care, unless the per-
son is grossly negligent or caused the emer-
gency. (Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-22).
Some states have enacted statutes that pro-
tect specific emergency care or assistance. Indi-
