Code Details

Health and Safety Code – HSC
DIVISION 2.5. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES [1797 – 1863] ( Division 2.5 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1260. )

CHAPTER 9. Liability Limitation [1799.100 – 1799.115] ( Chapter 9 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1260. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered. This subdivision applies only to the medical, law enforcement, and emergency personnel specified in this chapter.

(b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage other individuals to volunteer, without compensation, to assist others in need during an emergency, while ensuring that those volunteers who provide care or assistance act responsibly.

(2) Except for those persons specified in subdivision (a), no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered. This subdivision shall not be construed to alter existing protections from liability for licensed medical or other personnel specified in subdivision (a) or any other law.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to change any existing legal duties or obligations, nor does anything in this section in any way affect the provisions in Section 1714.5 of the Civil Code, as proposed to be amended by Senate Bill 39 of the 2009–10 Regular Session of the Legislature.

(d) The amendments to this section made by the act adding subdivisions (b) and (c) shall apply exclusively to any legal action filed on or after the effective date of that act.

(Amended by Stats. 2009, Ch. 77, Sec. 1. Effective August 6, 2009. Note: As referenced in subd. (d), subds. (b) and (c) were added in the amendment by Stats. 2009, Ch. 77.)

Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 Summary

California Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 provides crucial “Good Samaritan” immunity for individuals who render emergency care. This statute establishes two tiers of protection, depending on who provides the assistance:

1. For Specified Emergency Personnel (Subdivision a): Medical, law enforcement, and other emergency personnel explicitly covered by this chapter are granted full immunity from civil damages for any act or omission when they render emergency medical or nonmedical care. This protection applies only if they act in “good faith,” without “compensation,” and “at the scene of an emergency.” Importantly, “the scene of an emergency” specifically excludes emergency departments and other places where medical care is routinely offered. This means the immunity typically applies to situations like traffic accidents or other unexpected events outside of a formal medical setting.
2. For Other Individuals (Subdivision b): For all other individuals not specified in subdivision (a)—meaning the general public—a different standard of immunity applies. These individuals are also immune from civil damages for acts or omissions when providing good faith, uncompensated emergency care at the scene of an emergency (again, excluding medical facilities). However, this protection is not absolute. They can still be held liable if their actions or inactions constitute “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.” This means they are shielded from liability for ordinary negligence but not for more extreme forms of harmful conduct.

Subdivision (c) clarifies that this section does not alter existing legal duties or obligations, nor does it affect Civil Code § 1714.5. Subdivision (d) specifies that the amendments adding subdivisions (b) and (c) apply to legal actions filed on or after August 6, 2009.

Purpose of Health and Safety Code § 1799.102

The primary purpose of California Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 is to encourage individuals to provide assistance during emergencies without fear of legal repercussions. Before this statute and its amendments, potential rescuers, particularly ordinary citizens, might have hesitated to help someone in distress due to concerns about being sued if their efforts inadvertently caused further harm.

By providing immunity, the California Legislature aims to:

• Promote Intervention: Encourage people to step forward and offer help in critical situations, knowing they are legally protected.
• Balance Protection and Accountability: While encouraging aid, the statute also ensures a degree of accountability. It shields individuals from lawsuits based on ordinary mistakes (negligence) but allows for liability in cases of extreme, reckless, or intentional harm (gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct) by general citizens. For trained professionals, the bar for liability is even higher.
• Clarify Legal Standards: Differentiate the legal responsibilities and protections for trained emergency personnel versus the general public, recognizing the differing levels of expertise and training.

Ultimately, this “Good Samaritan” law seeks to save lives and prevent injuries by fostering a community where bystanders feel empowered to act in emergencies rather than passively observing.

Real-World Example of Health and Safety Code § 1799.102

Consider a scenario where a pedestrian is hit by a car in a busy intersection.

Example 1: Emergency Personnel
An off-duty paramedic, driving home, stops at the scene. Seeing the injured pedestrian bleeding heavily, the paramedic, without receiving any payment, immediately begins to apply pressure to the wound and stabilizes the person’s head and neck until official emergency services arrive. In the rush, the paramedic unintentionally causes a minor bruise while moving the injured person.

Under Health and Safety Code § 1799.102(a), the paramedic would likely be immune from any civil damages claim for that bruise. The paramedic acted in good faith, was not compensated for this specific act, and rendered emergency medical care at the scene of an emergency (not a hospital). As a specified emergency personnel member, they receive full immunity for acts or omissions.

Example 2: General Public
A passerby, who has no medical training, also stops to help. Seeing the same injured pedestrian, this individual tries to help by moving the pedestrian out of the street, believing it’s safer. In doing so, they inadvertently aggravate a spinal injury that wasn’t immediately apparent.

Under Health and Safety Code § 1799.102(b), the passerby would be protected from liability for ordinary negligence. However, if their actions were deemed “grossly negligent” (e.g., they carelessly dragged the person without any regard for potential injury, despite warnings from others) or “willful/wanton misconduct” (e.g., intentionally moving the person recklessly to “teach them a lesson”), they *could* be held liable. For simple, good-faith mistakes made while trying to help, they would be immune, as the Legislature intends to encourage such assistance.

Related Statutes

• Civil Code § 1714.5 – Exemptions from Liability for Emergency Medical Personnel and Public Agencies: This statute is explicitly referenced in HSC § 1799.102(c). It generally provides immunity for governmental entities and emergency response agencies, as well as for licensed medical personnel providing emergency care *without expectation of payment*. While overlapping with HSC § 1799.102(a) for medical professionals, CC § 1714.5 has a broader scope regarding *types of emergencies* (including national defense or disaster) and *entities* covered. The interplay means that medical professionals may have multiple layers of protection.
• Civil Code § 1714 – Liability for Negligent and Willful Acts: This is California’s foundational statute for negligence, stating that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their want of ordinary care or skill. Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 acts as a specific *exception* to this general rule, creating immunity from liability for negligence in specific emergency situations.
• Health and Safety Code § 1799.100 – Immunity for Emergency Rescue Personnel: This statute provides immunity for emergency rescue personnel performing rescue services, under certain conditions. While similar in intent, it focuses specifically on “rescue services” rather than general “emergency medical or nonmedical care.”
• Health and Safety Code § 1799.107 – CPR and AED Immunity: This section specifically grants immunity to individuals who render emergency cardiac care using CPR or an automated external defibrillator (AED) in good faith, emphasizing the state’s desire to encourage these life-saving interventions.

Case Law Interpreting Health and Safety Code § 1799.102

The interpretation of California’s Good Samaritan laws, including Health and Safety Code § 1799.102, has been a subject of judicial review, particularly concerning the scope of “emergency personnel” and the level of care expected from different rescuers.

A pivotal case that significantly influenced the 2009 amendment to HSC § 1799.102 is Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal. 4th 322 (2008). Prior to the 2009 amendment, subdivision (a) of the statute was the primary Good Samaritan protection. The California Supreme Court in *Van Horn* addressed whether this subdivision applied to a layperson (a bystander) who, in good faith, attempted to render aid to a victim of a car accident. The Court ultimately held that, as then written, the statute’s immunity *only* applied to “medical, law enforcement, and emergency personnel specified in this chapter.” This meant ordinary citizens who provided emergency care were *not* protected from liability for ordinary negligence under HSC § 1799.102(a). This decision effectively highlighted a gap in Good Samaritan protection for the general public, prompting the Legislature to amend the statute.

The 2009 amendment, which added subdivision (b), was a direct legislative response to cases like *Van Horn v. Watson*, creating the two-tiered system of immunity. Subdivision (b) explicitly extends protection to “other individuals” (the general public), shielding them from liability for ordinary negligence while retaining liability for gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct.

For a more detailed understanding of *Van Horn v. Watson*, you can find the case here: Van Horn v. Watson.

While *Van Horn* is crucial for understanding the statutory history, cases since 2009 have focused on applying the two-tiered system. Generally, courts continue to interpret the “good faith” and “scene of an emergency” requirements strictly and examine whether the care provided by a layperson rose to the level of “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

Why Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 plays a critical role in California personal injury litigation, profoundly impacting both plaintiff and defense strategies in cases involving emergency care.

For Defendants (Rescuers/Care Providers):

• Affirmative Defense: This statute provides a powerful affirmative defense for individuals who render emergency assistance. If a defendant can prove they acted in good faith, without compensation, and at the scene of an emergency, they may be entirely immune from liability (if they are specified personnel) or immune from claims of ordinary negligence (if they are a layperson).
• Reduced Liability Exposure: For laypersons, the bar for liability is significantly raised from ordinary negligence to gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct. This means a plaintiff must prove a much higher degree of culpability, making it harder to succeed in a lawsuit.
• Encourages Intervention: Defense attorneys can highlight the legislative intent of the statute, emphasizing that society encourages people to help in emergencies, and punishing good-faith efforts would undermine this crucial public policy.

For Plaintiffs (Injured Parties):

• Higher Burden of Proof: If the defendant is protected by HSC § 1799.102, the plaintiff’s attorney must overcome this immunity. For specified personnel, this would mean proving lack of good faith, compensation, or that the event wasn’t an emergency/at the scene. For other individuals, the plaintiff must gather evidence to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions constituted “gross negligence” or “willful or wanton misconduct,” a significantly more challenging task than proving ordinary negligence.
• Strategic Considerations: Plaintiffs’ attorneys must carefully investigate the circumstances of the emergency care. Was the care truly “good faith”? Was there any compensation involved? Did the act occur at the “scene of an emergency” or in a medical facility? Most importantly, for cases against laypersons, was the conduct so reckless or indifferent that it rises to gross negligence? Expert testimony may be crucial to establish the standard of care and deviation from it, especially when alleging gross negligence.
• Focus on Intent and Degree of Harm: Litigation will often center on the rescuer’s state of mind and the extreme nature of their actions. Did they act with a conscious disregard for safety (gross negligence), or did they intentionally cause harm (willful misconduct)?

In essence, Health and Safety Code § 1799.102 introduces a layer of complexity to personal injury cases involving emergency interventions. It acts as a shield for those who bravely step forward to help, ensuring that fear of litigation doesn’t deter essential “Good Samaritan” acts, while still allowing for recourse in instances of truly egregious behavior.