By Matthew V. Villani
On May 2012, a man who had a heart attack and crashed his vehicle on Interstate 80 was saved by a Good Samaritan. But what happens when the Good Samaritan causes more harm than good?
New Jersey’s Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1, immunizes from suit any Good Samaritan who renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim, or while transporting the victim to a hospital or other facility where treatment or care is to be rendered. However, a bystander may be held liable civilly liable for any “unreasonable” actions that furthered the victim’s suffering or injury. Velazquez v. Jiminez, 172 N.J. 240 (2002).
What about medical personal who provide emergency relief at a hospital?
In the New Jersey Supreme Court case of Velazquez v. Jiminez, 172 N.J. 240 (2002), the Court held that medical staff and doctors performing emergency care for a patient at a hospital are not protected by the Good Samaritan Act. The Court noted that the objective of the Good Samaritan Act is to encourage “the rendering of medical care to those who need it but otherwise might not receive it (ordinarily roadside accident victims), by persons who come upon such victims by chance, without the accoutrements provided in a medical facility, including expertise, assistance, sanitation or equipment. Velazquez, 172 N.J. at 250.
The Court further noted that the “a hospital patient is present in that venue for the very purpose of receiving medical care and is not a person who ordinarily would lack care in the absence of Good Samaritan immunity. Further, physicians in a hospital ordinarily do not come upon a hospital patient ‘by chance’ as would be the case if an accident or emergency occurred on a roadway.” Id. at 259-60. More importantly, the New Jersey State Legislature “knew that the fundamental problem facing a Good Samaritan on the street (the ability to do little more than render first aid under less than optimal circumstances) is not present in a fully staffed and equipped facility like a hospital, whose very purpose is ‘to make available[ ] the human skill and physical materiel of medical science to the end that the patient’s health be restored.’” Id. at 259-60 (citing) Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital, 308 N.Y. 100, 123 N.E.2d 792, 794 (1954).
Here at Ginarte Gonzalez Winograd L.L.P., we focus on representing NJ and NY victims of someone else’s negligence and protecting their rights. Call our office at (888)-GINARTE or contact us online for a free consultation and we will make sure your rights are not lost.