Maine Good Samaritan Statutes
Posted: August 24, 2023 Filed under: Maine | Tags: Good Samaritan law, Good Samaritan Statutes, MAINE 2 Comments§ 164. Immunity from civil liability 1
§ 2150-C. Automated external defibrillators; immunity from civil liability 1
§ 2150-G. Epinephrine autoinjectors; emergency administration 3
§ 3108. Asthma inhalers and epinephrine autoinjectors 5
§ 6305. Epinephrine autoinjectors; guidelines; emergency administration 5
§ 164. Immunity from civil liability
Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any public or private and special law, any person who voluntarily, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation from the person aided or treated, renders first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance to a person who is unconscious, ill, injured or in need of rescue assistance, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person nor for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance, unless it is established that such injuries or such death were caused willfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such person. This section shall apply to members or employees of nonprofit volunteer or governmental ambulance, rescue or emergency units, whether or not a user or service fee may be charged by the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity and whether or not the members or employees receive salaries or other compensation from the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity. This section shall not be construed to require a person who is ill or injured to be administered first aid or emergency treatment if such person objects thereto on religious grounds. This section shall not apply if such first aid or emergency treatment or assistance is rendered on the premises of a hospital or clinic. [1977, c. 69 (AMD).]
History:
1969, c. 565, (NEW). 1975, c. 452, § 1 (RPR). 1975, c. 679, § 1 (AMD). 1977, c. 69, (AMD).
ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 14 Sec. 164 Immunity from civil liability (Maine Revised Statutes (2022 Edition))
§ 2150-C. Automated external defibrillators; immunity from civil liability
1. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
A. “Automated external defibrillator” or “AED” means a medical device that combines a heart monitor and a defibrillator approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration that:
(1) Is capable of recognizing the presence or absence of ventricular fibrillation or rapid ventricular tachycardia;
(2) Is capable of determining, without intervention by an operator, whether defibrillation should be performed on an individual; and
(3) Upon determination that defibrillation should be performed, automatically charges and requests delivery of an electrical impulse to an individual’s heart. [2007, c. 267, §2 (RPR).]
B. [2007, c. 267, §2 (RP).]
2. Prohibition.
3. Duties.
4. Penalties.
5. Effect on other law.
6. Immunity. The following persons and entities are immune from civil liability for damages relating to the use, possession or purchase of an AED and arising out of acts or omissions relating to preparing for and responding to suspected sudden cardiac arrest emergencies absent gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct:
A. Any person or entity that acquires an AED; [2007, c. 267, §2 (NEW).]
B. Any person or entity that owns, manages or is otherwise responsible for the premises on which an AED is located; [2007, c. 267, §2 (NEW).]
C. Any person who retrieves an AED in response to a perceived sudden cardiac arrest emergency; [2007, c. 267, §2 (NEW).]
D. Any person who uses, attempts to use or fails to use an AED in response to a perceived sudden cardiac arrest emergency; [2007, c. 267, §2 (NEW).]
E. Any physician or other authorized person who issues a prescription for the purchase of an AED; [2007, c. 267, §2 (NEW).]
F. Any person or entity that is involved with the design, management or operation of an AED program; and [2007, c. 267, §2 (NEW).]
G. Any person or entity that provides instruction in the use of an AED. [2007, c. 267, §2 (NEW).]
History:
2001, c. 364, § 1 (NEW). 2007, c. 267, § 2 (RPR).
ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 22 Sec. 2150-C Automated external defibrillators; immunity from civil liability (Maine Revised Statutes (2022 Edition))
§ 2150-F. Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
1. Administer. “Administer” means to apply an epinephrine autoinjector directly to a human body.
2. Authorized entity. “Authorized entity” means any entity, organization or place of employment, other than a school under Title 20-A, section 6305, in connection with or at which allergens capable of causing anaphylaxis may be present, including but not limited to recreation camps, colleges, universities, day care facilities, youth sports leagues, amusement parks, restaurants and sports arenas.
3. Epinephrine autoinjector. “Epinephrine autoinjector” means a single-use device used for the automatic injection of a premeasured dose of epinephrine into a human body or another single-use epinephrine delivery system approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for public use.
4. Health care practitioner. “Health care practitioner” means an individual who is licensed, registered or otherwise authorized in the appropriate jurisdiction to prescribe and administer drugs in the course of professional practice.
History:
Amended by 2020, c. 560, §3, eff. 2/21/2020. Added by 2015, c. 231, §1, eff. 10/15/2015.
ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 22 Sec. 2150-F Definitions (Maine Revised Statutes (2022 Edition))
§ 2150-G. Epinephrine autoinjectors; emergency administration
1. Prescribing to an authorized entity permitted. A health care practitioner may prescribe epinephrine autoinjectors in the name of an authorized entity for use in accordance with this section, and pharmacists and health care practitioners may dispense epinephrine autoinjectors pursuant to a prescription issued in the name of an authorized entity. A prescription authorized pursuant to this section is valid for 2 years.
2. Authorized entities permitted to maintain supply. An authorized entity may acquire and stock a supply of epinephrine autoinjectors pursuant to a prescription issued under subsection 1. An epinephrine autoinjector must be stored in a location readily accessible in an emergency and in accordance with the instructions for use for the epinephrine autoinjector and any additional requirements that may be established by the department. An authorized entity shall designate employees or agents who have completed the training required under subsection 4 to be responsible for the storage, maintenance, control and general oversight of epinephrine autoinjectors acquired by the authorized entity.
3. Use of epinephrine autoinjectors. An employee or agent of an authorized entity who has completed the training required by subsection 4 may use epinephrine autoinjectors prescribed pursuant to subsection 1 to:
A. Provide an epinephrine autoinjector to a person the employee or agent believes in good faith is experiencing anaphylaxis, or the parent, guardian or caregiver of such a person, for immediate administration, regardless of whether the person has a prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector or has previously been diagnosed with an allergy; and [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
B. Administer an epinephrine autoinjector to a person the employee or agent believes in good faith is experiencing anaphylaxis, regardless of whether the person has a prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector or has previously been diagnosed with an allergy. [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
4. Training. An employee or agent of an authorized entity shall complete an anaphylaxis training program and shall complete additional training at least every 2 years thereafter. The training must be conducted by a nationally recognized organization experienced in training nonprofessionals in emergency health treatment or an entity or individual approved by the department. The department may approve specific entities or individuals or may approve classes of entities or individuals to conduct training. Training may be conducted online or in person and, at a minimum, must cover:
A. How to recognize signs and symptoms of severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis; [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
B. Standards and procedures for the storage and administration of an epinephrine autoinjector; and [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
C. Emergency follow-up procedures. [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
The entity or individual that conducts the training shall issue a certificate, on a form developed or approved by the department, to each person who successfully completes the anaphylaxis training program.
5. Immunity. The following entities are not liable for any injuries or related damages that result from any act or omission of the entity committed in good faith pursuant to this section unless it is established that the injuries or related damages were caused willfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence:
A. A health care practitioner that prescribes epinephrine autoinjectors in accordance with subsection 1; [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
B. A pharmacist or health care practitioner that dispenses epinephrine autoinjectors in accordance with subsection 1; [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
C. An authorized entity that acquires and stocks epinephrine autoinjectors or designates employees or agents to be responsible for storage, maintenance, control and general oversight of epinephrine autoinjectors in accordance with subsection 2; [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
D. An employee or agent of an authorized entity who has completed the training required by subsection 4 who provides an epinephrine autoinjector to a person pursuant to subsection 3, paragraph A or who administers an epinephrine autoinjector to a person in accordance with subsection 3, paragraph B; and [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
E. An individual or entity that conducts training in accordance with subsection 4. [2015, c. 231, §1 (NEW).]
The administration of an epinephrine autoinjector in accordance with this section is not the practice of medicine or any other profession that otherwise requires licensure.
This subsection does not eliminate, limit or reduce any other immunity or defense that may be available under the laws of this State, including that provided under Title 14, section 164.
An authorized entity located in this State is not liable for any injuries or related damages that result from the provision or administration of an epinephrine autoinjector outside of this State if the authorized entity would not have been liable for such injuries or related damages had the provision or administration occurred within this State.
History:
Added by 2015, c. 231, §1, eff. 10/15/2015.
ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 22 Sec. 2150-G Epinephrine autoinjectors; emergency administration (Maine Revised Statutes (2022 Edition))
§ 2496. Rules and policies
1. Department rulemaking. The department is authorized and empowered to make and enforce all necessary rules and regulations for the administration of this chapter, and may rescind or modify such rules and regulations from time to time as may be in the public interest, insofar as such action is not in conflict with any of the provisions of this chapter. Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection are routine technical rules as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A.
2. Youth camps; emergency medication. A youth camp must have a written policy authorizing campers to self-administer emergency medication, including, but not limited to, an asthma inhaler or an epinephrine autoinjector as defined in section 2150-F, subsection 3. The written policy must include the following requirements:
A. A camper who self-administers emergency medication must have the prior written approval of the camper’s primary health care provider and the camper’s parent or guardian; [2005, c. 140, §1 (NEW).]
B. The camper’s parent or guardian must submit written verification to the youth camp from the camper’s primary health care provider confirming that the camper has the knowledge and the skills to safely self-administer the emergency medication in camp; [2009, c. 211, Pt. A, §9 (AMD).]
C. The youth camp health staff must evaluate the camper’s technique to ensure proper and effective use of the emergency medication in camp; and [2009, c. 211, Pt. A, §9 (AMD).]
D. The emergency medication must be readily available to the camper. [2005, c. 140, §1 (NEW).]
History:
Amended by 2020, c. 560, §4, eff. 2/21/2020. 1975, c. 496, § 3 (NEW). 1977, c. 694, § 351 (AMD). 1999, c. 727, § 1 (AMD). 2005, c. 140, § 1 (RPR). 2009, c. 211, Pt. A, §9 (AMD). MRSA T.22 ., §2496 (AMD).
ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 22 Sec. 2496 Rules and policies (Maine Revised Statutes (2022 Edition))
§ 3108. Asthma inhalers and epinephrine autoinjectors
Municipal employees and volunteers that operate or assist in any municipal recreational program or camp may receive training on how to administer asthma inhalers and epinephrine autoinjectors as defined in Title 22, section 2150-F, subsection 3. Municipal employees and volunteers may possess and administer prescribed asthma inhalers and epinephrine autoinjectors in order to provide emergency aid. [2019, c. 560, §5 (AMD).]
History:
Amended by 2020, c. 560, §5, eff. 2/21/2020. 2007, c. 588, § 1 (NEW).
ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 30-A Sec. 3108 Asthma inhalers and epinephrine autoinjectors (Maine Revised Statutes (2022 Edition))
§ 6305. Epinephrine autoinjectors; guidelines; emergency administration
1. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
A. “Collaborative practice agreement” means a written and signed agreement between a physician licensed in this State or a school health advisor under section 6402-A and a school nurse under section 6403-A that provides for the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors by the physician or school health advisor and administration of epinephrine autoinjectors by a school nurse or designated school personnel to students during school or a school-sponsored activity under emergency circumstances involving anaphylaxis. [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
B. “Designated school personnel” means those employees, agents or volunteers of a school administrative unit or an approved private school designated by a collaborative practice agreement between a physician licensed in this State or a school health advisor under section 6402-A and a school nurse under section 6403-A who have completed the training required by rule to provide or administer an epinephrine autoinjector to a student. [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
C. “Epinephrine autoinjector” means a single-use device used for the automatic injection of a premeasured dose of epinephrine into a human body or another single-use epinephrine delivery system approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for public use. [2019, c. 560, §2 (AMD).]
D. “School” means a public or approved private school. [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
2. Collaborative practice agreement; adoption authorized. A school administrative unit or an approved private school may authorize adoption of a collaborative practice agreement for the purposes of stocking and administering epinephrine autoinjectors as provided under this section. The administration of an epinephrine autoinjector in accordance with this section is not the practice of medicine.
3. Collaborative practice agreement; authority. A collaborative practice agreement permits a physician licensed in this State or school health advisor under section 6402-A to prescribe an epinephrine autoinjector and direct a school nurse under section 6403-A to administer an epinephrine autoinjector in good faith to any student experiencing anaphylaxis during school or a school-sponsored activity. Pursuant to a collaborative practice agreement, a physician licensed in this State or school health advisor under section 6402-A may authorize the school nurse under section 6403-A during school or a school-sponsored activity to designate other school personnel with training required by rule to administer an epinephrine autoinjector if the school nurse is not present when a student experiences anaphylaxis.
4. Collaborative practice agreement; terms and provisions. A collaborative practice agreement must include the following information:
A. Name and physical address of the school; [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
B. Identification and signatures of the physician or school health advisor under section 6402-A and school nurse under section 6403-A who are parties to the collaborative practice agreement, the dates the agreement is signed by each party and the beginning and end dates of the period of time within which the agreement is in effect; and [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
C. Any other information considered appropriate by the physician or school health advisor under section 6402-A and school nurse under section 6403-A. [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
5. Use of epinephrine autoinjectors without a collaborative practice agreement. The governing body of a school administrative unit or an approved private school may authorize a school nurse under section 6403-A and designated school personnel to administer an epinephrine autoinjector to a student in accordance with a prescription specific to the student on file with the school nurse and in accordance with section 254, subsection 5. The administration of an epinephrine autoinjector in accordance with this subsection is not the practice of medicine.
6. Manufacturer or supplier arrangement. A school administrative unit or an approved private school may enter into an arrangement with a manufacturer of epinephrine autoinjectors or a 3rd-party supplier of epinephrine autoinjectors to obtain epinephrine autoinjectors at fair market prices or reduced prices or for free.
7. Purchase from licensed pharmacies. A collaborative practice agreement under this section may provide that a school administrative unit or an approved private school may purchase epinephrine autoinjectors from a pharmacy licensed in this State.
8. Guidelines. By December 1, 2015 and as needed after that date, the department in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services shall develop and make available to all schools guidelines for the management of students with life-threatening allergies. The guidelines must include, but are not limited to:
A. Guidelines regarding education and training for school personnel on the management of students with life-threatening allergies, including training related to the administration of an epinephrine autoinjector; [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
B. Procedures for responding to life-threatening allergic reactions; [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
C. A process for the development of individualized health care and allergy action plans for students with known life-threatening allergies; and [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
D. Protocols to prevent exposure to allergens. [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
9. Plan. By September 1, 2016 and as needed after that date, the governing body of a school administrative unit or an approved private school shall:
A. Implement a protocol based on the guidelines developed pursuant to subsection 8 for the management of students with life-threatening allergies enrolled in the schools under its jurisdiction; and [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
B. Make the protocol under paragraph A available on the governing body’s publicly accessible website or the publicly accessible website of each school under the governing body’s jurisdiction or, if those websites do not exist, make the protocol publicly available through other means as determined by the governing body. [2013, c. 526, §1 (NEW).]
The governing body of the school administrative unit or the approved private school shall annually attest to the department that the schools under its jurisdiction are implementing the protocol in accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
History:
Amended by 2020, c. 560, §2, eff. 2/21/2020. Added by 2014, c. 526, §1, eff. 7/31/2014.
ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 20-A Sec. 6305 Epinephrine autoinjectors; guidelines; emergency administration (Maine Revised Statutes (2022 Edition))
G-YQ06K3L262
Good Samaritan Laws
Posted: June 27, 2018 Filed under: State | Tags: AED Good Samaritan, AED Good Samaritan Act, Good Samaritan, Good Samaritan law, Parable of the Good Samaritan Leave a commentThe Good, the Bad and the Unknown.
Good Samaritan laws were enacted by states to encourage people to assist injured citizens. The rise in Good Samaritan laws occurred with the rise with automobile accidents causing serious injury. However, the Good Samaritan laws have been stretched, restricted, changed and modified by public opinion leaving most with questions as to how the law is applied.
States enact Good Samaritan laws, and as such there are fifty different Good Samaritan laws, and those laws have been interpreted by the Courts fifty different ways. On top of that, almost a dozen states have enacted AED Good Samaritan laws and there is a Federal AED Good Samaritan law. This article is not intended to be the definitive research study on the issue, rather a general review of the legal issues, and you must check to understand how the Good Samaritan law is going to be applied to you in your state, or the state where you may be acting.
Finally, this is a study of the law. It is not a statement of the moral or ethical issues you may first in a situation where you may be needed to assist someone.
Good Samaritan laws only protect against lawsuits for bad First Aid. Good Samaritan law not to apply to the facts that caused the incident or anything that may apply after the first aid is tendered.
Good Samaritan laws only apply to individuals. Good Samaritan laws do not cover business, corporations or limited liability companies. If you are running an outfitting business and have an injured patron, your employees may incur liability for your organization by performing first aid. No matter what your employees do or how well they perform first aid, the business can still be held liable.
HOWEVER, your employees will incur liability for your business if they do not perform first aid. In the past ten years, three different states have held business liable for not allowing their employees to assist an injured party or for not assisting a Good Samaritan, who was assisting an injured party. In a Connecticut 2006 case, Parekh v. DST Output, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 481, an employer was held liable when it failed to provide adequate medical care for an employee who was suffering an illness and died at work. In a New Jersey case, a business was held liable when it did not allow an employee to assist a patron who was suffering a heart attack. Finally, in a 2006 California court, Soldano v. O’Daniels, 141 Cal. App. 3d 443; 190 Cal. Rptr. 310; 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1539; 37 A.L.R.4th 1183 held a business liable when it refused to allow a Good Samaritan to call 911. The Good Samaritan came in from another store and asked to use the telephone to call 911. The business refused to allow the store to do so and injured party was shot. These are extreme cases; however, they show the courts believe that people should assist those in trouble and failing to do so is worse than doing so and messing up.
Good Samaritan laws do not protect anyone involved with the accident or organization where the accident occurred. Employees, who are given the responsibility of dealing with patrons, can be held liable for negligent first aid care for their patrons. Looking at it another way, Good Samaritan protects people passing buy and assisting someone they do not know who is injured. If you have a relationship with the injured or ill person, and the injury or illness occurred while that person was dealing with you, the Good Samaritan law will probably not provide protection. Examples are outfitter and guide statutes that require guides to have a first aid card. Because of the duty to provide first aid that is part of the requirement to have first aid training, there can be no protection under a Good Samaritan statute.
You are not covered by the Good Samaritan law if you placed the injured party in peril. This is also going to eliminate any protection under Good Samaritan laws for guides and outfitters. Because the outfitters and guides took the client out in the backcountry, that is the area of peril, where the guest was injured so the guide and outfitter are liable for the guest injuries.
Most Good Samaritan laws cover physicians the same way they cover any third party. Most Good Samaritan laws do not identify anyone who is not protected by the Good Samaritan statutes and a few specifically identify physicians as protected under the Good Samaritan law. However, that protection is still limited by the requirements set forth above. A physician who works at a hospital, on the staff is an employee or has a duty to everyone at the hospital and as such cannot use the Good Samaritan statutes to protect against a malpractice claim. The malpractice claim itself eliminates the Good Samaritan statutes from protecting you because the mal practice claim requires a relationship between a patient and physician. In a Good Samaritan law situation, the claim would be against an individual against another individual, who may or may not be a physician.
Good Samaritan laws only protect persons performing first aid. One of the big areas that has emerged is what can the Good Samaritan do. The normal answer would be to the extent of their first aid training and slightly beyond. However, that test can no longer be used because many first aid training programs are teaching beyond the scope of first aid. If your training is beyond the scope of first aid, you cannot act to your training because that exceeds the definition of first aid. The great issue is no legal definition exists for first aid.
Probably the best definition is the one used by the American Red Cross in its 2005 Guidelines for First Aid. First aid is defined by the ARC from National First Aid Science Advisory Board definition of: “assessments and interventions that can be performed by a bystander with no medical equipment.”
Do Something
Good Samaritan laws are fantastic. They provide protection so people can be taken care of by bystanders. Good Samaritan laws were not designed for outfitters and guides, lodges, or recreation providers and do not provide coverage or protection for these groups.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2018 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog:
www.recreation-law.com
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer,
It is hard to understand the law because there are so many variations of the law and fifty different states with laws. It is harder to understand the law when the person explaining it to you is not a lawyer or worse, wrong.
Posted: May 16, 2018 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: AED Good Samaritan, AED Good Samaritan Act, Good Samaritan, Good Samaritan law, Guide, Outfitter, Pennsylvania Good Samaritan Act Leave a commentIt is hard to understand the law because there are so many variations of the law and fifty different states with laws. It is harder to understand the law when the person explaining it to you is not a lawyer or worse, wrong.
You don’t go to law school for fun. Law school is NOT fun. You go to law school to understand how the law works. Law School is just the first step. You must study and understand what is going on to understand an area of the law.
If you did not go to law school, and you need legal help, ask a lawyer.
I got a question the other day from a client. He was preparing to give a speech to a group of lodge owners and wanted to make sure he was going to say the right thing about the Good Samaritan Act. He had read a lot of websites and particularly one website and thought he understood the issues.
He did not. Neither did the websites. In fact, one of the websites, which was based on the course and book he had just taken described what the Good Samaritan law was based for that course. The course, book and class were wrong too.
My client was off, and the website was wrong. The problem is the wrong was enough to get you in trouble as a professional, program college or business.
You really need to beware of non-lawyers telling you what the law says.
First, there is not one Good Samaritan Law, there are at least fifty, in reality, there are more than 150. Each state has its own Good Samaritan law. Many states have many different laws covering rescue, first aid, AED use, the Heimlich maneuver and other aspects of providing support to injured people without becoming liable.
Everyone explains the Good Samaritan law as you are not liable if you help someone in need and are not paid for that help. Sort of.
All the following are requirements from different state Good Samaritan laws. You are covered…
-
If you have the right training
- Some states list the training you must have
-
You follow the standards of a specific training organization (dependent upon the state).
- American Red Cross
- American Heart Association
- National Safety Council
- National Ski Patrol
- Boy Scouts of America
- A course as determined by the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene
- Department of Public Health
- director of health
- mining enforcement and safety administration of the bureau of mines of the department of interior
- Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
- American Red Cross
- Some states list the training you must have
- If you don’t act outside the scope of your training
- You act like a reasonable or ordinary prudent person
- If you are not being paid for your services
- You are not in a hospital or in some states on hospital grounds
- You are a member of an organization that exists to provide emergency services
- You act in good faith
- You have been called to act by the county sheriff
- You are paid but not to provide first aid, only to provide public services
- You did not act willfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence
- The care is provided at the scene of the accident
- You are at work
- You are not at work
- You’ve been trained in the use of the AED
- You’ve been trained in the use of the epinephrine
- You are not the one that caused the injury or placed the person in peril
- Or you have not obtained consent
You are NOT covered by Good Samaritan Laws in some states if….
- “…or when incidental to a business relationship existing between the employer or principal of the person rendering such care…”
- Shall not apply if the care inures to your employer
- Where the person has not consented to the care
-
Are working as a guide or outfitter
-
Whether or Not you are being paid as a guide
- If you are required to have 1st aid you are not covered
- If you are required to have 1st aid you are not covered
-
Whether or Not being paid as a physician
- But some states allow you to be paid later as a physician
- But some states allow you to be paid later as a physician
-
-
You placed the person in peril
- Meaning any part of the trip as a guide
- Meaning any part of the trip as a guide
Just look at the requirement that the care be rendered at the scene of the accident. You are helping someone get out of the backcountry, and you adjust their band aid, away from the accident scene. In man states you are not covered by the state Good Samaritan act.
As a Guide are you covered by the Good Samaritan Act? NO!
My client’s confusion was the fine line between compensation for your services, and compensation as a guide or employee, because you are paid to provide first aid. Meaning as a guide, who may or may not be required to provide first aid or have first aid training, are you covered under the Good Samaritan law, if you provide first aid training to one of your guests. In most cases no.
There is no Good Samaritan coverage if:
You are employed and part of your job is to provide first aid
Because you are required to have a level of first aid training
The industry requires people to be trained in first aid
The guest knows you are trained in first aid and relies on that knowledge you gave them
The landowner or river owner requires it under a permit or concession
You placed the guest in the peril that caused the injury.
You picked the location where the guide is fishing
You picked the route up the mountain
You told the guest to follow the map you gave them on the ride or hike
You are a guide, and you took the client out; you are not covered by the Good Samaritan laws in most states.
You are a guide, the definition meaning you will take care of the client.
And the issues above are not changed in the Outdoor Recreation Industry by using Independent Contractors. In all cases, the guide and the outfitter are liable.
Consequently, a website, class or book cannot in one paragraph tell you whether your actions are going to be covered by the Good Samaritan law.
I hope you are covered by the Good Samaritan law, but find out for sure.
Do Something
It sucks but getting legal advice from someone other than attorney does not work.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2018 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog:
www.recreation-law.com
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer,
Florida AED Statute for Schools
Posted: December 18, 2016 Filed under: First Aid, Florida, Medical | Tags: AED, AED Good Samaritan Act, Automatic External Defibrillator, Good Samaritan law Leave a commentFla. Stat. § 1006.165 (2016)
§ 1006.165. Automated external defibrillator; user training.
(1) Each public school that is a member of the Florida High School Athletic Association must have an operational automated external defibrillator on the school grounds. Public and private partnerships are encouraged to cover the cost associated with the purchase and placement of the defibrillator and training in the use of the defibrillator.
(2) Each school must ensure that all employees or volunteers who are reasonably expected to use the device obtain appropriate training, including completion of a course in cardiopulmonary resuscitation or a basic first aid course that includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, and demonstrated proficiency in the use of an automated external defibrillator.
(3) The location of each automated external defibrillator must be registered with a local emergency medical services medical director.
(4) The use of automated external defibrillators by employees and volunteers is covered under ss. 768.13 and 768.1325.
Pennsylvania Good Samaritan Act
Posted: February 11, 2016 Filed under: Pennsylvania | Tags: Good Samaritan, Good Samaritan law, Pennsylvania Good Samaritan Act Leave a commentPennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
Title 42. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Part VII. Civil Actions and Proceedings
Chapter 83. Particular Rights and Immunities
Subchapter C. Immunities Generally
42 Pa.C.S. § 8331 (2016)
§ 8331. Medical good Samaritan civil immunity.
(a) General rule. —
Any physician or any other practitioner of the healing arts or any registered nurse, licensed by any state, who happens by chance upon the scene of an emergency or who arrives on the scene of an emergency by reason of serving on an emergency call panel or similar committee of a county medical society or who is called to the scene of an emergency by the police or other duly constituted officers of a government unit or who is present when an emergency occurs and who, in good faith, renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such physician or practitioner or registered nurse in rendering the emergency care, except any acts or omissions intentionally designed to harm or any grossly negligent acts or omissions which result in harm to the person receiving emergency care.
(b) Definition. —
As used in this section “good faith” shall include, but is not limited to, a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the rendering of care should not be postponed until the patient is hospitalized.
HISTORY: Act 1976-142 (S.B. 935), P.L. 586, § 2, approved July 9, 1976, See section of this act for effective date information.
NOTES:
EDITOR’S NOTES.
Section 2 of Act 1976-142 enacted new subchapter C, “Immunities Generally.”
1. Neither the Emergency Medical Services Act, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35, §§ 6921 to 6938, nor the AED Good Samaritan Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2, imposed a duty upon a tennis club to acquire, maintain, and use an automated external defibrillator, as defined in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2(f), and summary judgment was properly entered against a tennis player who suffered a stroke while playing tennis and sought damages for the club’s negligence in failing to have a defibrillator available for such an emergency. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832 (Pa. 2002).
2. Good Samaritan statute did not apply to a situation where a doctor received a telephone call from a hospital and provided advice for treatment of a hospitalized patient who was suffering from respiratory difficulties; the statute did not provide the doctor with a defense to an action resulting from the death of the patient and the doctor’s summary judgment motion was denied. The Good Samaritan statute did not apply because the doctor was not at the scene of an emergency, as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8331(a), and § 8331(b) implied that the statute did not apply to hospitalized patients. Phebus v. UPMC Horizon, 71 Pa. D. & C.4th 513, 2005 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 68 (Pa. County Ct. 2005).
3. Neither the Emergency Medical Services Act, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35, §§ 6921 to 6938, nor the AED Good Samaritan Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2, imposed a duty upon a tennis club to acquire, maintain, and use an automated external defibrillator, as defined in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2(f), and summary judgment was properly entered against a tennis player who suffered a stroke while playing tennis and sought damages for the club’s negligence in failing to have a defibrillator available for such an emergency. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832 (Pa. 2002).
4. Good Samaritan statute did not apply to a situation where a doctor received a telephone call from a hospital and provided advice for treatment of a hospitalized patient who was suffering from respiratory difficulties; the statute did not provide the doctor with a defense to an action resulting from the death of the patient and the doctor’s summary judgment motion was denied. The Good Samaritan statute did not apply because the doctor was not at the scene of an emergency, as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8331(a), and § 8331(b) implied that the statute did not apply to hospitalized patients. Phebus v. UPMC Horizon, 71 Pa. D. & C.4th 513, 2005 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 68 (Pa. County Ct. 2005).
5. Neither the Emergency Medical Services Act, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35, §§ 6921 to 6938, nor the AED Good Samaritan Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2, imposed a duty upon a tennis club to acquire, maintain, and use an automated external defibrillator, as defined in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2(f), and summary judgment was properly entered against a tennis player who suffered a stroke while playing tennis and sought damages for the club’s negligence in failing to have a defibrillator available for such an emergency. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832 (Pa. 2002).
3943. 14-246 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide–Legal Forms § 246.31, Division 1 Individuals and Families, Standard of Care Owed by Health Care Providers.
3944. 38 P.L.E. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS § 25, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Acts or Omissions Constituting Malpractice, Copyright 2013, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.
Maine Supreme court applies a broad definition to a well worded Good Samaritan Statute.
Posted: November 8, 2010 Filed under: First Aid, Maine | Tags: Good Samaritan, Good Samaritan law, Good Samaritan Statutes, Lost, MAINE, Snowmobile, Snowmobiler Leave a commentCampbell v. Schwartz, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 360; 712 N.E.2d 1196; 1999 Mass. App. LEXIS 795
The Maine Good Samaritan Statute uses the word “rescue” rather than the more limiting term “emergency care.”
This case is about friends who went searching for a lost snowmobiler. The deceased was the third snowmobiler of a party of three who were traveling late at night in below-freezing weather. When the deceased did not arrive with the other two snowmobilers, two people went back to search for him. They found the deceased with a snowmobile that was not working.
Based on the condition of the deceased, time of the night, and the 20-degree below zero the pair decided to have the deceased ride behind one of the rescuers. During the ride back the deceased fell off the snowmobile and was run over and killed by the following snowmobile. At the time of this death, the deceased had a blood alcohol level of .34, four times the Maine legal limit.
The deceased’s widow sued the two rescuers for the death of her husband. The defendants raised the defense of immunity because of the Maine Good Samaritan Statute.
The Maine Good Samaritan statue reads:
14 M.R.S. § 164 (2009)
§ 164. Immunity from civil liability
Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any public or private and special law, any person who voluntarily, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation from the person aided or treated, renders first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance to a person who is unconscious, ill, injured or in need of rescue assistance, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person nor for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance, unless it is established that such injuries or such death were caused willfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such person. This section shall apply to members or employees of nonprofit volunteer or governmental ambulance, rescue or emergency units, whether or not a user or service fee may be charged by the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity and whether or not the members or employees receive salaries or other compensation from the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity. This section shall not be construed to require a person who is ill or injured to be administered first aid or emergency treatment if such person objects thereto on religious grounds. This section shall not apply if such first aid or emergency treatment or assistance is rendered on the premises of a hospital or clinic.
The statute uses a very broad definition of what type of care will be protected by the act “renders first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance to a person who is unconscious, ill, injured or in need of rescue assistance.”
The court found the actions of the Good Samaritans when they started to search for the lost snowmobiler to the time they found him dead was a rescue. The time, the temperature, the distance from safety as well as the fact they knew he had been drinking added up to a rescue.
So?
Because the laws are so different from state to state, you cannot assume that the protection provided, or that you learned about in one state will be the same in another state. The Maine statute, thankfully, is broadly written and broadly interpreted by the courts. For two rescuers, it was fortunate that they were in a state that looked at rescue as a necessity for the residents of the state and chose to encourage it rather than discourage it.
:What do you think? Leave a comment.
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, and outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufacturers, and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of eight books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk
Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law To Purchase Go Here:
Connect
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/recreationlaw/
Threads https://www.threads.net/@recreation_law
X https://twitter.com/RecreationLaw
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
@2011-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC
G-YQ06K3L262
Letter to the editor: Camp Business
Posted: May 9, 2008 Filed under: First Aid | Tags: Camp Business, first aid, Good Samaritan law, Health care, Health care provider, James H. Moss, Law Leave a commentMay 1, 2008
Rodney J. Auth, Publisher
Camp Business
PO Box 1166
Medina, OH 44258-1166
Camp Business May/June 2008
I read with interest and concern the article Medical Matters in the May/June Camp Business. I believe it should be pointed out that no liability protection is provided by receiving doctor’s standing orders or physician protocols. I’m going to use the term protocol to refer to standing orders. This is the term used in the medical industry and by state statutes to define a physician directing a non-physician to do a procedure that is more than first aid. A physician issuing a protocol which the camp follows does not provide any liability protection to a camp.
There are two main issues that define how a protocol can be issued by a physician. The first is to whom the physician’s protocol is transmitted. That can be either a licensed health care provider within the scope of their duties as defined by state law or an employee of the physician under the supervision and control of the physician.
A licensed health care provider is a nurse, physician assistant, paramedic or emergency medical technician; someone is has been issued license by the state. Whether and how someone is licensed is controlled by state law and varies by state. The scope of the duties a licensed health care provider can provide outside of the supervision and control of a physician also varies by state. A good example is the states are split about evenly on whether an EMT can use epinephrine without a physician’s approval. This difference is also important if you are hiring a health care provider. Make sure you hire the person who is licensed by the state to perform the level of health care you expect under the law where the health care is to be performed.
The second, if a person is not a licensed health care provider they may still be able to act, however they must be under the direct supervision and control of a physician. That generally means the physician has trained the person in the procedure, the physician has employed the person to administer the procedure and the physician is within the distance required by law. Distance varies by state. In Colorado the physician must be within 30 minutes of where the procedure is being done and be able to get there. In Arizona the physician must be in the same room as the person administering the procedure.
As such, for most camps in most states physician protocols for non-licensed camp personnel provide no liability protection. Any liability protection that a proper protocol does provide does not stop any litigation; it just changes the claim from failure to provide proper first aid to a medical malpractice suit and ads the physician as a defendant.
Also of concern is asking a physician to issue a protocol that puts the physician at risk for review or worse by their state physician licensing agency.
Things have changed dramatically from my camp staff days. One of the main duties in preparing for the campers was scraping the m off M&M’s in anticipation of homesickness problems.
Sincerely,
James H. Moss
Editor Outdoor Recreation Law Review
www.snewsnet.com/lawreview
http://rec-law.blogspot.com/
For more information on this subject see: Legal Issues in First Aid #3: The prescription drug conundrum, Legal Issues in Wilderness First Aid: Value of various first aid certificates and training, Arizona adopts epinephrine Good Samaritan law, Legal Issues in Wilderness First Aid
Recreation Law 