Carter v. Reese (Slip Opinion)
70 N.E.3d 478
Ohio2016Background
- Plaintiff Dennis Carter’s leg became pinned between a trailer and a loading dock after slipping; Reese attempted to free him by moving the tractor-trailer and the trailer rolled back, causing catastrophic injury and later amputation.
- Carter told Reese to move the truck forward about a foot and warned not to put it in reverse; Reese entered the cab, lacked experience, the truck’s brakes released and the trailer rolled backward.
- Paramedics arrived minutes later and freed Carter; Carter and his wife sued Reese but did not allege willful or wanton misconduct.
- Reese moved for summary judgment invoking Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute, R.C. 2305.23; trial court granted judgment for Reese and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether R.C. 2305.23 (1) applies to any person or only health-care professionals and (2) whether "administering emergency care" is limited to medical care or includes nonmedical assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of persons covered by R.C. 2305.23 | Carter: statute intended to protect health-care professionals and trained responders only; statute’s origin and certain language shows medical focus | Reese: statute says "no person" and therefore applies to any person who administers emergency care | Held: "No person" language covers any person, not limited to medical professionals |
| Meaning of “administering emergency care” | Carter: term should be read to mean emergency medical care only; statute’s purpose and footnote in Primes support medical focus | Reese: legislature used broad language; no adjective "medical"—so statute covers nonmedical aid | Held: "Administering emergency care" includes medical and nonmedical assistance when an unforeseen combination of circumstances calls for immediate action |
| Applicability to Reese’s conduct | Carter: Reese’s act of moving the truck was not "emergency care" (or was not protected) | Reese: attempting to move the truck to free Carter was an act of emergency care at the scene | Held: Reese performed acts at the scene that constituted emergency care and no willful/wanton misconduct was alleged; statute shields him from civil liability |
| Interpretation approach and remedial limits | Carter: courts should not expand Good Samaritan beyond recognized medical focus; legislative amendment required for broader reach | Reese: textual reading controls; court should not insert limiting words | Held: Court relied on plain text and ordinary meanings, declined to add limiting adjective; affirmed summary judgment for Reese |
Key Cases Cited
- Primes v. Tyler, 43 Ohio St.2d 195 (1975) (discusses Good Samaritan immunity in legislative context)
- Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (2008) (statutory phrasing "no person" indicates broad application)
- Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal.4th 322 (2008) (California Supreme Court interpreted "emergency care" narrowly as medical; legislature later amended statute)
- Goebel’s Emergency Med. Serv., Inc. v. Sandusky County Bd. of Comm’rs, 58 Ohio App.3d 25 (6th Dist. 1989) (definition of "emergency" cited in appellate context)