Code Details

Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3273.69] ( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 3. OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW [1708 – 1725] ( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Anaphylaxis” means a potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity or allergic reaction to a substance.

(A) Symptoms of anaphylaxis may include shortness of breath, wheezing, difficulty breathing, difficulty talking or swallowing, hives, itching, swelling, shock, or asthma.

(B) Causes of anaphylaxis may include, but are not limited to, insect stings or bites, foods, drugs, and other allergens, as well as idiopathic or exercise-induced anaphylaxis.

(2) “Epinephrine auto-injector” means a disposable delivery device designed for the automatic injection of a premeasured dose of epinephrine into the human body to prevent or treat a life-threatening allergic reaction.

(b) (1) Any person described in subdivision (b) of Section 1797.197a of the Health and Safety Code who administers an epinephrine auto-injector, in good faith and not for compensation, to another person who appears to be experiencing anaphylaxis at the scene of an emergency situation is not liable for any civil damages resulting from his or her acts or omissions in administering the epinephrine auto-injector, if that person has complied with the requirements and standards of Section 1797.197a of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) (A) An authorized entity shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct connected to the administration of an epinephrine auto-injector by any one of its employees, volunteers, or agents who is a lay rescuer, as defined by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 1797.197a of the Health and Safety Code, if the entity has complied with all applicable requirements of Section 1797.197a of the Health and Safety Code.

(B) The failure of an authorized entity to possess or administer an epinephrine auto-injector shall not result in civil liability.

(3) This subdivision does not affect any other immunity or defense that is available under law.

(c) The protection specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall not apply in a case of personal injury or wrongful death that results from the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the person who renders emergency care treatment by the use of an epinephrine auto-injector.

(d) Nothing in this section relieves a manufacturer, designer, developer, distributor, or supplier of an epinephrine auto-injector of liability under any other applicable law.

(e) An authorizing physician and surgeon is not subject to professional review, liable in a civil action, or subject to criminal prosecution for the issuance of a prescription or order in accordance with Section 1797.197a of the Health and Safety Code unless the physician and surgeon’s issuance of the prescription or order constitutes gross negligence or willful or malicious conduct.

(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 374, Sec. 2. (AB 1386) Effective January 1, 2017.)

Civil Code § 1714.23 Summary

Despite the provided title referencing “Civil Immunity for Opioid Overdose Treatment (Naloxone),” the exact text of Civil Code § 1714.23, as detailed above, actually grants civil immunity for the *emergency administration of epinephrine auto-injectors to treat anaphylaxis*.

In essence, this statute provides legal protection to individuals and certain entities who, in good faith and without compensation, administer an epinephrine auto-injector (commonly known as an EpiPen) to someone experiencing a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) at an emergency scene.

Here’s a breakdown of its key provisions:

• Immunity for Individuals: A person who is authorized under Health and Safety Code § 1797.197a (often referring to trained lay rescuers) and who administers an epinephrine auto-injector in good faith and without compensation to someone appearing to have anaphylaxis, is generally not liable for civil damages.
• Immunity for Authorized Entities: An “authorized entity” (e.g., schools, restaurants, sports venues that stock EpiPens) is also immune from civil damages related to an employee, volunteer, or agent administering an EpiPen, unless their actions constitute gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct. This entity must have complied with the requirements of Health and Safety Code § 1797.197a.
• No Liability for Non-Possession: Crucially, an authorized entity cannot be held liable simply for *not* possessing or administering an epinephrine auto-injector.
• Limits to Immunity: The immunity does not apply if the person administering the EpiPen acts with gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct, which results in personal injury or wrongful death.
• Manufacturer Liability: The statute explicitly states it does not protect manufacturers, designers, distributors, or suppliers of epinephrine auto-injectors from liability under other applicable laws.
• Physician Immunity: Physicians who issue prescriptions or orders for epinephrine auto-injectors in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 1797.197a are also immune from professional review, civil action, or criminal prosecution, unless their actions involved gross negligence or willful/malicious conduct.

Purpose of Civil Code § 1714.23

The legislative purpose behind Civil Code § 1714.23 is to encourage immediate, life-saving intervention for individuals experiencing severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) without fear of legal repercussions. Anaphylaxis can escalate rapidly and be fatal if not treated promptly. By providing civil immunity, the law aims to:

• Empower Lay Rescuers: Encourage trained individuals, who might otherwise hesitate due to potential liability, to administer epinephrine auto-injectors in emergency situations. This aligns with “Good Samaritan” principles, extending protection to those acting charitably in emergencies.
• Promote Preparedness: Incentivize “authorized entities” (like schools, workplaces, or public venues) to stock epinephrine auto-injectors and train their staff, knowing they are largely shielded from liability for good-faith administration. This increases access to this critical, time-sensitive medication in various settings.
• Save Lives: Ultimately, the statute seeks to reduce fatalities and severe injuries caused by anaphylactic shock by removing legal barriers to timely and effective emergency care.

It is important to reiterate that while the provided title mentions “Opioid Overdose Treatment (Naloxone),” the text of Civil Code § 1714.23 is specifically designed to address the use of *epinephrine auto-injectors for anaphylaxis*. The purpose, therefore, centers on mitigating the risks associated with allergic reactions.

Real-World Example of Civil Code § 1714.23

Imagine a scenario at a bustling community fair. Sarah, a volunteer for the local youth soccer league, is supervising a booth. Ten-year-old David, who has a severe peanut allergy, accidentally eats a snack containing peanuts, unbeknownst to him. Within minutes, David begins to show signs of anaphylaxis: his face swells, he struggles to breathe, and he starts to wheeze.

Sarah, having recently completed a first-aid and CPR course that included training on epinephrine auto-injector use (as described in Health and Safety Code § 1797.197a), quickly assesses the situation. She retrieves an EpiPen from the first-aid kit, confirms David’s symptoms match anaphylaxis, and administers the epinephrine auto-injector to him, calling 911 immediately afterward. David’s breathing stabilizes, and he is transported to the hospital for further care.

Under Civil Code § 1714.23, if David or his parents later attempted to sue Sarah for civil damages related to her administration of the EpiPen, Sarah would likely be protected by this statute. As long as she acted in good faith, without compensation, and complied with the training and requirements of Health and Safety Code § 1797.197a, she would be immune from liability. This immunity encourages individuals like Sarah to act decisively in a medical emergency, potentially saving a life.

Related Statutes

Civil Code § 1714.23 is closely related to, and directly references, specific sections of the California Health and Safety Code, which provide the framework for the administration of epinephrine auto-injectors:

• Health and Safety Code § 1797.197a – Epinephrine Auto-Injector Administration by Lay Rescuers and Authorized Entities: This is the foundational statute referenced throughout Civil Code § 1714.23. It defines who can be a “lay rescuer,” sets the requirements for training, acquisition, and storage of epinephrine auto-injectors for authorized entities (like schools, restaurants, and other public venues), and outlines the protocols for their use. Civil Code § 1714.23’s immunity is contingent upon compliance with the standards and requirements set forth in this Health and Safety Code section.

Other related “Good Samaritan” laws that provide general civil immunity for emergency care, though less specific to epinephrine auto-injectors, include:

• Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 – Emergency Care at Scene of Emergency: This broader “Good Samaritan” law provides immunity for any person who renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, unless their actions constitute gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
• Civil Code § 1714.2 – Immunity for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR): This section specifically grants immunity to individuals who render emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the scene of an emergency, again, provided they do not act with gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Code § 1714.23

As of the current date, there is limited published appellate case law directly interpreting or litigating the specific nuances of Civil Code § 1714.23. This is often the case with highly specific immunity statutes, especially those enacted or significantly amended relatively recently (Civil Code § 1714.23 was amended in 2016). Litigation typically arises when a broad statute’s application is contested or when a specific factual scenario leads to a published decision from an appellate court.

The statute’s language regarding “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct” would likely be interpreted in line with general California tort law principles for these concepts, rather than creating new definitions specific to this section. Therefore, while no direct, prominent case law specifically interpreting *this exact section* is readily available through Google Scholar, general principles of negligence and gross negligence would apply if a case were to challenge the immunity provided by Civil Code § 1714.23.

Why Civil Code § 1714.23 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Code § 1714.23 holds significant importance in California personal injury litigation, particularly in cases involving medical emergencies and the administration of life-saving interventions. Despite the title, its relevance specifically pertains to the use of epinephrine auto-injectors for anaphylaxis.

For plaintiffs seeking damages related to an injury allegedly caused by the administration of an epinephrine auto-injector, this statute presents a substantial hurdle. To overcome the immunity provided, a plaintiff would need to prove that the individual or authorized entity administering the auto-injector acted with *gross negligence* or *willful or wanton misconduct*. This is a much higher legal bar than ordinary negligence. For example, a minor error in judgment would typically be protected, but recklessly using an EpiPen on someone not experiencing anaphylaxis, or failing to follow basic safety protocols leading to severe injury, *could* potentially strip away immunity.

For defendants (individuals or authorized entities) involved in administering epinephrine auto-injectors, Civil Code § 1714.23 serves as a powerful affirmative defense. It means that if they acted in good faith, without compensation, and in compliance with Health and Safety Code § 1797.197a, they are largely shielded from civil liability for their actions. This provides critical protection for trained lay rescuers, employees of authorized entities, and even the authorizing physicians, encouraging them to act swiftly and confidently in a medical crisis.

Understanding this statute is crucial for personal injury attorneys on both sides. Plaintiffs’ attorneys must carefully investigate the circumstances surrounding the EpiPen administration to determine if gross negligence or willful misconduct can be plausibly alleged and proven. Defense attorneys, conversely, will emphasize the good faith efforts and adherence to statutory requirements to assert immunity, potentially leading to early dismissal or favorable settlement of claims. The statute also underlines the importance of proper training and adherence to protocols for any individual or entity that stocks and uses epinephrine auto-injectors.