New "Good Samaritan" and "Volunteer" laws

Wildlife Actor

Has this gone completely under the radar or is it just me?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0023/print.html#sec4

It's too long to quote in full but here are some key bits:

‘good samaritan’ means a person who, without expectation of payment or other reward, provides assistance, advice or care to another person in an emergency, but does not include a person who does so as a volunteer;

‘volunteer’ means a person who does voluntary work that is authorised by a volunteer organisation and does so without expectation of payment (other than reasonable reimbursement for expenses) or other reward;

‘voluntary work’ means any work or other activity that is carried out for any of the following purposes: (a) a charitable purpose within the meaning of the Charities Act 2009 ;
(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), the purpose of providing assistance, advice or care in an emergency or so as to prevent an emergency;
(c) the purpose of sport or recreation;

51D.— (1) A good samaritan shall not be personally liable in negligence for any act done in an emergency when providing—
(a) assistance, advice or care to a person who is—
(i) in serious and imminent danger, or apparently in serious and imminent danger, of being injured or further injured,
(ii) injured or apparently injured, or
(iii) suffering, or apparently suffering, from an illness,
or
(b) advice by telephone or by another means of communication to a person (whether or not the person is a person referred to in paragraph (a)) who is at the scene of the emergency.

51E.— (1) A volunteer shall not be personally liable in negligence for any act done when carrying out voluntary work.
(2) The protection from personal liability conferred on a volunteer by subsection (1) shall not apply to any act done by the volunteer if—
(a) the act was done by the volunteer in bad faith or with gross negligence, or
(b) the volunteer knew or ought reasonably to have known that the act was—
(i) outside the scope of the voluntary work authorised by the volunteer organisation concerned, or
(ii) contrary to the instructions of the volunteer organisation concerned

51G.— (1) This section applies to proceedings relating to the liability of a volunteer organisation for negligence arising from activities carried out by or on behalf of the organisation.
(2) In any proceedings to which this section applies, when determining whether the volunteer organisation owed a duty of care to the plaintiff or any other person, a court shall consider whether it would be just and reasonable to find that the organisation owed such a duty having regard to the social utility of the activities concerned.
(3) Nothing in this section shall operate to limit the matters that a court may consider, in proceedings to which this section applies, when determining whether a volunteer organisation owed a duty of care to a plaintiff or other person.

I think that this is very progressive legislation. I'm not sure that people sue good samaritans or volunteers that often, but there must be some cases, and even if it gives people some peace of mind in going out to help others, it helps.

MagicSean

Would a good samaritan include a member of the emergency services? An ambulance driver does not get or expect any extra payment or reward for helping a victim so it could theoretically fit into the definition. Could do with being a bit clearer there.

NoQuarter

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Would a good samaritan include a member of the emergency services? An ambulance driver does not get or expect any extra payment or reward for helping a victim so it could theoretically fit into the definition. Could do with being a bit clearer there.

That is their specific job though, I would imagine they would fall outside this act, if they didnt, I would imagine the act would have specified them as its always been something of an issue that they are not protected.

Wile E. Coyote

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Would a good samaritan include a member of the emergency services? An ambulance driver does not get or expect any extra payment or reward for helping a victim so it could theoretically fit into the definition. Could do with being a bit clearer there.

I don't think they'd qualify as that is the job they are paid to so while on duty. However I'm sure an off duty ambulance driver who stopped to help an injured person would be included as they are not being paid for the work at that time.

blueythebear

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Would a good samaritan include a member of the emergency services? An ambulance driver does not get or expect any extra payment or reward for helping a victim so it could theoretically fit into the definition. Could do with being a bit clearer there.

It's hard to tell actually. Traditionally, professional rescuers were not to be held liable for negligence in effecting the rescue so I would have to presume on that basis, that ambulance drivers, fire brigade staff, etc. would be held as "good samaritans" under the legislation.

THe whole purpose of this legislation was to clarify the common law rules in relation to this area and a big part of this would be the extent to which professional rescuers could be held liable for negligence in effecting a rescue. On that basis also, they must be included.

I agree that it could be clearer though...

Wile E. Coyote

blueythebear wrote: »

THe whole purpose of this legislation was to clarify the common law rules in relation to this area and a big part of this would be the extent to which professional rescuers could be held liable for negligence in effecting a rescue. On that basis also, they must be included.

I agree that it could be clearer though...

I'd find it hard to believe that a professional (or there employer), who was negligent during the course of his working day wouldn't be held in some way responsible. I think the law only relates to someone who doesn't have an obligation to assist someone.

blueythebear

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

I'd find it hard to believe that a professional (or there employer), who was negligent during the course of his working day wouldn't be held in some way responsible. I think the law only relates to someone who doesn't have an obligation to assist someone.

The more I look at it, the more I'm thinking that it does not include on duty professional rescuers. Looking at it based on the wording (as opposed to the old common law) it refers to a good samaritan being held not liable for any negligence which is not realistic where the good samaritan is a professional. Also "expects no reward" for rescuing a person is a dead giveaway too...

TylerIE

Love nor Money wrote: »

Has this gone completely under the radar or is it just me?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0023/print.html#sec4

It's too long to quote in full but here are some key bits:

I think that this is very progressive legislation. I'm not sure that people sue good samaritans or volunteers that often, but there must be some cases, and even if it gives people some peace of mind in going out to help others, it helps.

Wow! IT has gone under the radar! Only recently someone was asking me in a class about "Good Samaritan" and I had to go through the no Irish law diatribe! Thanks for pointing it out.