The Perils of Rescue Unpacking South Carolina's Good Samaritan Statute
No. Vol. 24 Issue 4 Pg. 47
South Carolina BAR Journal
January, 2021
By
Michael W. Rabb
“Danger
invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief.
The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind in
tracing conduct to its consequences.” [1] Taking
their name from a biblical parable, “Good
Samaritan” statutes offer legal protection intended to
encourage bystanders to help victims in distress by
minimizing their fear of being sued or prosecuted for their
errors or mistakes in rendering aid or treatment.[2]
South
Carolina's Good Samaritan statute reads as follows:
[a]ny person, who in good faith gratuitously renders
emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to
the victim thereof, shall not be liable for any civil damages
for any personal injury as a result of any act or omission by
such person in rendering the emergency care or as a result of
any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further
medical treatment or care for the injured person, except acts
or omissions amounting to gross negligence or wilful or
wanton misconduct.[3]
Similar
to many other state Good Samaritan laws, the statute contains
multiple ambiguous terms such as “good faith,”
“gratuitously,” “scene of the accident or
emergency,” and “emergency care,” that have
yet to be interpreted by South Carolina appellate courts. The
end of the statute is notable for the clear language
providing that a plaintiff can hurdle the statute's
immunity by proving to a jury that the rescuer's conduct
rose to the level of gross negligence or wilful or wanton
misconduct.
The
only published opinion from South Carolina courts directly
addressing the state's Good Samaritan statute is a 34
year-old Court of Appeals opinion where the court explicitly
refused to interpret the statute.[4] In Ballou v. Sigma Nu
General Fraternity, the South Carolina Court of Appeals
addressed a trial judge's refusal to give a jury
instruction on the statute in a wrongful death suit brought
against a fraternity by the estate of a deceased fraternity
pledge.[5] In avoiding addressing the merits,
the court cleverly explained the fraternity suffered no
prejudice from the trial court's failure to charge the
Good Samaritan statute because the jury found the fraternity
guilty of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, which would
have rendered the statute unable to aid the fraternity, due
to the immunity limitation, even if charged to the
jury.[6]
For an
interesting example of how courts interpret these statutes,
consider the landmark 2007 appellate court decision of
Van Horn v. Watson.[7] In this case, a group of friends
were driving home from a bar in separate vehicles around 1:30
a.m. An accident occurred when the driver of one car lost
control and crashed into a curb. The other vehicle's
driver pulled over after the accident and several passengers
ran to help. One of the passengers testified that he dragged
the plaintiff in that case out of the wrecked car after he
saw smoke and liquid coming out of the vehicle. The plaintiff
later brought a personal injury suit against this passenger
claiming she had only sustained an injury to her vertebrae
during the accident, but sustained permanent damage to her
spinal cord rendering her a paraplegic after she was dragged
from the car. The trial court, relying on California's
Good Samaritan statute protecting rescuers, granted summary
judgment for the passenger. The California Court of Appeals
reversed this decision, finding the Good Samaritan statute
did not provide protection for the passenger in this
situation because the passenger was not rendering
"emergency medical care" at the time.
California's Supreme Court later reviewed and upheld the
court of appeals' controversial decision. Notably,
California's Good Samaritan statute and South
Carolina's Good Samaritan statute are nearly identical,
both containing the seemingly innocuous language that led to
the controversial California opinion. This article will
attempt to predict how a South Carolina court might interpret
this language and in turn offer a framework to local
practitioners advising clients on the applicability of the
statute.
Interpretations
of ambiguous language in South Carolina's
statute
In
unpacking South Carolina's statute, one should first
address the "good faith" requirement the
legislature puts in place for the Good Samaritan. In the
rescue context, most states consider a rescuer to be acting
in good faith so long as he is not guilty of gross, willful,
or wanton negligence.[8] Good faith has been specifically
defined in the rescue context by one state as "a
reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is
such that the rendering of care should not be
postponed."[9] Either of these definitions leads to
a heavily fact-driven analysis that a South Carolina court
would likely defer to a jury. A leading decision on this
issue from the Seventh Circuit found a jury question existed
on whether a physician's decision not to bill for his
emergency assistance with a...
