In the case of Carter v. Reese, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5569, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute applies to any person who administers emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency” not just health care professionals. The Ohio Supreme Court further held that emergency care “includes rendering medical and any other form of assistance to the safety and well-being of another when the result of an unforeseen combination of circumstances calls for immediate action.” Carter at ¶ 38.
The case involves the amputation of a truck driver’s leg. The truck driver slipped on a loading dock causing his leg to become wedged between the dock and the trailer. The truck driver “could not free himself and began to yell for help and bang on a loading dock door.” Carter at ¶ 5. About ten minutes later, the defendant heard the truck driver’s calls for help and attempted to offer aid. The truck driver “told him to ‘get in my truck, move it forward about a foot, * * * but whatever you do, don’t put it in reverse.’” Carter at ¶ 6.
The defendant “climbed into the cab of the truck and put it in neutral before realizing that he did not know how to operate it.” Carter at ¶ 7. The trailer rolled backwards and broke the truck driver’s leg. “Due to the severity of the injuries [* * *] his right leg had to be amputated above the knee.” Carter at ¶ 8.
The truck driver sued his would be rescuer and the defendant asserted Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute, which provides immunity to individuals who administer emergency care at the scene of an emergency, as a defense. The truck driver argued that the Good Samaritan Statute only provides immunity for health care professionals and trained first responders who voluntarily administer medical care.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the Good Samaritan statute applies to all persons, not just those in the health care profession. While the immunity provided under the Ohio Good Samaritan statute is not specific to governmental officials, public employees – particularly those employed by boards of education – may find themselves in circumstances that call for immediate action to protect the safety and well-being of another, including students. This case allows for the argument that, absent willful or wanton misconduct, such action may be protected under the Good Samaritan statute.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.