Major Revision In Good Samaritan Law

Recently a divided California Supreme Court in Van Horn v. Watson,
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do ... 152360.PDF made a major revision in the State’s Good Samaritan law, H&S Code Sec. 1799.102. The law had been interpreted as providing immunity from liability to a person who in good faith provides emergency aid to another even if the emergency aid causes injury to the person. Now under Van Horn, a Good Samaritan is immune only when providing emergency medical aid but not when rescuing or transporting the victim. For example a hiker can be sued if he accidently injures a fallen hiker while moving him from the face of a cliff but is immune from liability if he breaks the hiker’s leg while providing emergency medical care.
Van Horn is relevant to Funston. If an injured pilot is in a glider perched precariously on the cliff, rescuers may want to balance the need to move the pilot with the risk of exposing themselves and their families to financial damages. Whether USHPA’s poorly written waiver or the local waiver offers protection is uncertain.
There is an indication that the California legislature will change the law restoring the old interpretation but quick action by the legislature is unlikely.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do ... 152360.PDF made a major revision in the State’s Good Samaritan law, H&S Code Sec. 1799.102. The law had been interpreted as providing immunity from liability to a person who in good faith provides emergency aid to another even if the emergency aid causes injury to the person. Now under Van Horn, a Good Samaritan is immune only when providing emergency medical aid but not when rescuing or transporting the victim. For example a hiker can be sued if he accidently injures a fallen hiker while moving him from the face of a cliff but is immune from liability if he breaks the hiker’s leg while providing emergency medical care.
Van Horn is relevant to Funston. If an injured pilot is in a glider perched precariously on the cliff, rescuers may want to balance the need to move the pilot with the risk of exposing themselves and their families to financial damages. Whether USHPA’s poorly written waiver or the local waiver offers protection is uncertain.
There is an indication that the California legislature will change the law restoring the old interpretation but quick action by the legislature is unlikely.