CARTER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. REESE ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 2015-0108
Supreme Court of Ohio
August 30, 2016
2016-Ohio-5569
Submitted January 5, 2016
{¶ 1} Dennis Carter and his wife, Mary, appeal from a judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals that affirmed the trial court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of Larry Reese Jr. in connection with an action they filed for injuries Carter sustained when Reese attempted to move a tractor-trailer that had pinned Carter‘s leg between the trailer and a loading dock.
{¶ 2} Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute states:
No person shall be liable in civil damages for administering emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency * * *, for acts performed at the scene of such emergency, unless such acts constitute willful or wanton misconduct.
{¶ 3} In this case, Carter told Reese to pull the tractor-trailer forward in order to free his leg, but when Reese attempted to do so, the truck rolled backward, resulting in serious injury to Carter.
{¶ 4} “Administering emergency care” is a broad phrase that includes rendering medical and any other form of assistance to the safety and well-being of another when the result of an unforeseen combination of circumstances calls for immediate action. Therefore, because Reese administered emergency care at the scene of the emergency and because the statute expressly states that no person shall be liable in civil damages for acts performed at the scene of such emergency, and because no allegation of willful or wanton misconduct has been asserted against him, pursuant to Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute, Reese is not liable in civil damages, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 5} On April 24, 2012, Carter, a truck driver for S & S Transport, Inc., pulled a tractor-trailer into the loading dock at AIC Contracting, Inc., in Fairfield, Ohio, to deliver an empty trailer and to pick up another. After attaching the second trailer, he pulled his truck about four to six inches away from the loading dock, unlocked the trailer brake, and locked the tractor brake so that the tractor wheels could not move. As he pulled himself onto the loading dock to close the trailer door, he slipped, and his leg became wedged between the loading dock and the trailer. Although he felt no physical pain at that time, he could not free himself and began to yell for help and bang on a loading dock door in an effort to get someone to help him.
{¶ 6} About ten minutes later, Reese heard Carter and drove to the AIC Contracting lot. Carter told him to “get in my truck, move it forward about a foot, * * * but whatever you do, don‘t put it in reverse.” Reese responded, “[N]o problem.”
{¶ 7} Reese climbed into the cab of the truck and put it in neutral before realizing that he did not know how to operate it. Carter recalled that Reese “revved up” the truck three times before he heard the air brake release, and within five seconds of that happening, the trailer rolled backwards and broke his leg.
{¶ 8} Paramedics arrived four minutes later, and someone moved the truck and freed Carter‘s leg. Due to the severity of the injuries, however, his right leg had to be amputated above the knee.
{¶ 9} Carter and his wife sued Reese but did not allege that he had engaged in willful or wanton misconduct. Reese asserted Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute as a
{¶ 10} The court of appeals affirmed and held that
applies to any person, health care professional or otherwise, who administers “emergency care,” medical or otherwise, at the scene of an emergency and who meets the remaining requirements of the statute, e.g., their acts do not constitute willful or wanton misconduct.
(Emphasis sic.) 2014-Ohio-5395, 25 N.E.3d 1086, ¶ 15. The court explained that an emergency situation exists when a man‘s leg is pinned between a truck and a loading dock, that Reese‘s actions in attempting to move the truck constituted emergency care because he was trying to resolve the emergency created by Carter, and further, that Reese did not commit willful or wanton misconduct.
{¶ 11} The Carters appealed and we accepted the following proposition of law for review:
The trial court committed reversible error in granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals committed error in affirming the judgment, because the protection afforded under the Ohio Good Samaritan statute,
R.C. 2305.23 , is limited in scope and application to health care responders providing emergency medical care or treatment to another individual at the scene of an emergency and who otherwise satisfy the statute.
The Parties to the Appeal
{¶ 12} On appeal to this court, the Carters urge that
{¶ 13} Reese argues that
Issues on Appeal
{¶ 14} This case presents our court with two separate questions involving the legislative intent behind Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute.
{¶ 15} First, what did the General Assembly intend by using the phrase “no person shall be liable in civil damages“—did it intend to include only health care professionals who administer emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency, or, more broadly, to include any person who administers emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency?
{¶ 16} Second, what did the General Assembly intend by using the phrase “administering emergency care“—did it intend to limit emergency care to only the administration of medical care, or, did it intend to include all forms of care administered at the scene of an emergency?
{¶ 17} Our interpretation of Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute and resolution of these questions present matters of first impression in our court. Other jurisdictions, however, have considered similar questions in connection with their respective Good Samaritan statutes, and their decisions are instructive in resolving these questions.
Historical Perspective
Common Law
{¶ 18} The common law in Ohio is that a bystander has no affirmative duty to aid or protect another absent a special relationship justifying the imposition of a
Good Samaritan Statutes
{¶ 19} In 1959, California enacted the nation‘s first Good Samaritan statute, which provided that no physician or podiatrist, “who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care.” Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code 2144, enacted 1959, now codified as
{¶ 20} Since that time, every state has enacted some version of Good Samaritan legislation. Id. at 631; see also Annotation, Construction and Application of “Good Samaritan” Statutes, 68 A.L.R.4th 294, 300 (1989). These statutes generally fall into three categories—those that specifically include by reference only medically trained persons; those that apply to the rendition of medical aid by any person; and those that more broadly apply to any person rendering emergency care, treatment, or other kinds of assistance without expressly requiring that such actions be medical in nature.
I. Only Medically Trained Persons
{¶ 21} Five states have Good Samaritan statutes that, with certain exceptions, expressly exclude only medically trained persons from liability for civil damages. See
II. Any Person Rendering Medical Assistance
{¶ 22} Four states have Good Samaritan statutes that apply to any person but expressly limit protection from liability to the rendering of medical aid through use of terms such as “first aid,” “medical attention,” and “health care treatment.” See
{¶ 23} The remaining states have Good Samaritan statutes that broadly apply to any person who renders emergency care, treatment, or other kinds of assistance without an express requirement that those acts be medical in nature. See
Law and Analysis
Ohio‘s Good Samaritan Statute
{¶ 24}
No person shall be liable in civil damages for administering emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor‘s office, or other place having proper medical equipment, for acts performed at the scene of such emergency, unless such acts constitute willful or wanton misconduct.
Nothing in this section applies to the administering of such care or treatment where the same is rendered for remuneration, or with the expectation of remuneration, from the recipient of such care or treatment or someone on his behalf. The administering of such care or treatment by one as a part of his duties as a paid member of any organization of law
enforcement officers or fire fighters does not cause such to be a rendering for remuneration or expectation of remuneration.
{¶ 25} Regarding the first question—whether
(B) No physician who volunteers the physician‘s services as a team physician or team podiatrist to a school‘s athletics program, no dentist who volunteers the dentist‘s services as a team dentist to a school‘s athletics program, and no registered nurse who volunteers the registered nurse‘s services as a team nurse to a school‘s athletics program is liable in damages in a civil action for administering emergency medical care, emergency dental care, other emergency professional care, or first aid treatment to a participant in an athletic event involving the school, at the scene of the event * * *, or for acts performed in administering the care or treatment, unless the acts of the physician, dentist, or registered nurse constitute willful or wanton misconduct.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 26} Obviously, the General Assembly did not similarly limit the scope of Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute; rather, by stating that no person shall be liable in civil damages, it expressed its intent that the statute apply to anyone who otherwise meets the statutory requirements. Compare Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33, 2008-Ohio-270, 881 N.E.2d 255, ¶ 25 (by using the phrase “[n]o person shall operate a motor vehicle” in
{¶ 27} We recognize that the title of the act containing the original version of Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute states its purpose: “To enact section 2305.23 of the Revised Code, relative to the liability of physicians and nurses for emergency treatment.” Am.Sub.S.B. No. 14, 130 Ohio Laws 1424. However, while the title
{¶ 28} Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute applies to any person who administers emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency including but not limited to health care professionals.
{¶ 29} Regarding the second question—whether the phrase “administering emergency care” is limited to medical attention or more broadly includes other forms of assistance—because the legislature did not define any of these terms in
{¶ 30} The term “administer” means, inter alia, “[f]urnish, supply, give.” 1 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 28 (5th Ed.2002). See also Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 27 (1986) (definition of “administer” includes “to mete out“).
{¶ 31} An “emergency” is “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.” Webster‘s at 741. See also 1 Shorter Oxford at 814 (an emergency is “[a] situation, esp. of danger or conflict, that arises unexpectedly and requires urgent action“);
{¶ 32} The dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice objects to the definition of an “emergency” including the phrase “an unforeseen combination of circumstances.” That dissenting opinion notes that some injuries are “wholly foreseeable, but nonetheless, they require immediate, urgent care,” opinion at ¶ 51, and “would not limit an ‘emergency’ for purposes of
{¶ 33} “Unforeseen” means unexpected—a term used in several definitions of an “emergency” relied upon by the dissenting opinion. Webster‘s at 2496. In contrast, “unforeseeable” means “incapable of being foreseen, foretold, or anticipated.” Id. A combination of circumstances may be unforeseen or unexpected by the individuals experiencing them even though those circumstances were capable of being foreseen.
{¶ 35} To construe the phrase “administering emergency care” to mean only emergency medical care would require this court to add a descriptive adjective to the statute. Notably, in Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal.4th 322, 325-326, 331, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 350, 197 P.3d 164 (2008), that is what the Supreme Court of California did when it determined that the phrase “emergency care” in that state‘s Good Samaritan statute meant emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency, despite the fact that the legislature had not used that limiting adjective. The California legislature amended the statute the following year to clarify that emergency care meant “emergency medical or nonmedical care.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 36} Similarly, the Ohio General Assembly used the phrase “emergency care,” not “emergency medical care,” and therefore, its intent is more expansive and includes both medical and nonmedical emergency care.
{¶ 37} We recognize that footnote five in Primes, 43 Ohio St.2d at 201, 331 N.E.2d 723, states that
{¶ 38} Thus, the phrase “administering emergency care” as used in Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute includes rendering medical and any other form of assistance to the safety and well-being of another when the result of an unforeseen combination of circumstances calls for immediate action. Compare Wallace v. Hall, 145 Ga.App. 610, 610-611, 244 S.E.2d 129 (1978) (holding that a former version of Georgia‘s Good Samaritan statute, which is similar to the current version and protected “[a]ny person” who “in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency,” applied to a homeowner who, when a repairman was injured in a fall at her house, aggravated his injuries
{¶ 39} A careful reading of
{¶ 40} The uncontested facts in this case show that Reese performed acts at the scene of an emergency that constituted administering “emergency care” to Carter. Carter slipped, his leg became wedged between a loading dock and a trailer, and he could not free himself from a situation that resulted from an unforeseen combination of circumstances, called for immediate action, and thus constituted an “emergency” for purposes of
Conclusion
{¶ 41} Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute applies to any person who administers emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency including but not limited to health care professionals. Moreover, the phrase “administering emergency care” in the statute is not limited to medical acts and includes rendering medical and any other form of assistance to the safety and well-being of another when the result of an unforeseen combination of circumstances calls for immediate action. Because Reese performed acts at the scene of an emergency in administering emergency care to Carter and there is no allegation of willful or
Judgment affirmed.
KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O‘NEILL, JJ., concur.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by LANZINGER, J.
PFEIFER, J., dissents, with an opinion.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., dissenting.
{¶ 42} I agree with the majority‘s holding that
{¶ 43} I would hold that the definition of an “emergency” includes sudden events or circumstances that require urgent or immediate attention or action, regardless of whether the events were foreseeable. And I would hold that questions about the application of
ANALYSIS
Emergencies are not limited to unforeseeable circumstances and foreseeability is irrelevant for purposes of R.C. 2305.23
{¶ 44} The portion of Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute that is relevant to this appeal states: “No person shall be liable in civil damages for administering emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency * * *, for acts performed at the scene of such emergency, unless such acts constitute willful or wanton misconduct.”
{¶ 45} “There is no definition of ‘emergency medical care or treatment’ in the Revised Code.” Campbell v. Colley, 113 Ohio App.3d 14, 19, 680 N.E.2d 201 (4th Dist.1996). When a statute does not define a term, courts are to give the term its usual, normal, or customary meaning. Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-3319, 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 12;
{¶ 46} Here, the majority defines “administering emergency care” according to the definitions of “emergency” found in some dictionaries. See, e.g., majority opinion at ¶ 31. The majority adopts those definitions, which include the legal concept of foreseeability, and then sets forth a definition of “administering emergency care” as “rendering medical and any other form of assistance to the safety and well-being of another when the result of an unforeseen combination of circumstances calls for immediate action.” (Emphasis added.) Majority opinion at paragraph two of the syllabus. But the majority is not mindful that while determining legislative intent primarily involves an analysis of the statutory language, it is also necessary to consider the legislature‘s purpose in enacting the law. Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53, 2007-Ohio-5589, 876 N.E.2d 546, ¶ 20, citing State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 535, 696 N.E.2d 1079 (1998).
{¶ 47} With that purpose in mind, I would not limit the statutory term “emergency care” to an unforeseen combination of circumstances. Several reasons support a definition of “emergency” that does not incorporate the concept of foreseeability.
The urgency of a situation, not its foreseeability, is critical to defining an emergency in a manner consistent with the purpose of the statute
{¶ 48} First, we must be cognizant that the purpose of the statute is to promote the public policy of encouraging the rendering of aid to those in dire circumstances. See Primes v. Tyler, 43 Ohio St.2d 195, 201, 331 N.E.2d 723 (1975), fn. 5 (describing
{¶ 49} But given the broad scope of the statute and its intent to shield well-intended individuals from liability for rendering aid, it is unlikely that the General Assembly intended to incorporate a legal concept (foreseeability) into the definition of emergency because the average person is unlikely to have a sufficient understanding of the legal aspects of foreseeability. Rather, it is more likely that the legislative intent was to rely on commonly used and understood words, like “sudden,” “unexpected,” “urgent,” and “immediate,” to define an emergency.
{¶ 51} Consider a high school‘s varsity football team playing on a Friday night in autumn. As those who attend games often see, high schools across Ohio retain ambulances for football games because players and spectators can sustain serious injuries during the game. Indeed, it is now widely understood that players can suffer concussions during games. Lueke, High School Athletes and Concussions, 32 J.Leg.Med. 483, 485, 501 (2011) (noting that “[c]oncussions are inevitable in high school sports” and that there are 300,000 sports-related concussions each year in the United States, that concussions are twice as likely to occur during games than in practice, and that the majority of concussions in high school athletics occur while students play football, soccer, and basketball). Those injuries are thus wholly foreseeable, but nonetheless, they require immediate, urgent care. Id. at 489-490 (allowing a player with a concussion to return to the field can lead to long-term neuropsychological dysfunction, severe disability, and death). Under the majority‘s definition, a concussion at a football game might not qualify as an “emergency.”
{¶ 52} Similarly, we expect that there will be lifeguards on duty at public swimming pools. And the presence of lifeguards signifies the presence of potential emergencies, including drowning and injuries sustained from diving. In other words, injuries and life-threatening conditions are foreseeable at water parks and pools, and those injuries and conditions require immediate action.
{¶ 53} In construing Ohio‘s Good Samaritan statute, we must be mindful that the salient inquiry in cases involving
{¶ 54} “Within the [Good Samaritan] Act‘s intended meaning an emergency occurs whenever a stranger appears (or may be perceived) to be ill or in need of succor.” (Emphasis deleted.) Jackson v. Mercy Health Ctr., Inc., 1993 OK 155, 864 P.2d 839, 845. “[L]imited and technical definitions given to the concepts of ‘emergency’ and ‘emergency care’ frustrate the purpose of Good Samaritan legislation,” McDowell v. Gillie, 2001 ND 91, 626 N.W.2d 666, ¶ 18, and should be avoided. This is particularly true given the intent of Good Samaritan laws, which is to abrogate the common-law rescue doctrine and to encourage people to risk helping strangers in need of emergency assistance without fear of liability, even when they have no duty to render aid. “Generally, a bystander has no duty to
{¶ 55} But under the majority‘s definition of an emergency, the foreseeable nature of injuries, including those at football games and swimming pools, renders them outside the scope of
To the extent that dictionaries have utility in defining “emergency,” we should look to those definitions that existed when the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2305.23
{¶ 56} Second, to the extent that dictionary definitions of “emergency” are illustrative of the legislative intent, we must be mindful that a judge or justice often has several versions of a definition from which to choose. While the majority correctly cites certain definitions of which it approves, other dictionaries define the term “emergency” differently.2 Thus, we should rely on dictionary
{¶ 57} The Sixth District‘s definition of “emergency” in Goebel‘s Emergency Med. Serv., Inc. v. Sandusky Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 58 Ohio App.3d 25, 567 N.E.2d 1330 (6th Dist.1989) based on the definition of “emergency” as it appeared in a 1983 dictionary, is more consistent with the common meaning of the word at the time of the statute‘s enactment. And that definition—” ‘a sudden or unexpected occurrence * * * demanding prompt action; urgent necessity’ “—omits the notion of foreseeability. See Id. at 26, quoting Webster‘s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 593 (2d Ed.1983).
Ohio courts interpret “emergency” without reference to foreseeability in other statutory schemes
{¶ 58} Third, when the term “emergency” is undefined in a statute, Ohio‘s courts often have interpreted the word without reference to foreseeability.
{¶ 59} In the context of a statute requiring “emergency medical or hospital care” for the indigent, this court has recognized that “commonly understood, an emergency is a sudden or unexpected occurrence which demands immediate action.” (Emphasis sic.) Mansfield Gen. Hosp. v. Richland Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 170 Ohio St. 486, 166 N.E.2d 224 (1960), paragraph three of the syllabus. And as the Tenth District succinctly explained in another context,
[B]ecause the term “emergency” in
R.C. 2917.13(A)(1) is undefined by statute, the term is given its common, everyday meaning. The common dictionary definition of “emergency” is ““an unexpected situation or sudden occurrence of a serious and urgent nature that demands immediate attention.““”
State v. Zaleski, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-101, 2010-Ohio-5557, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Blocker, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-313, 2007-Ohio-144, ¶ 51, quoting Wolf, 2004-Ohio-2479, ¶ 40, quoting American Heritage Dictionary 448 (2d College Ed.1922).
{¶ 61} Consistent with the broad judicial definitions of “emergency” in other Ohio statutory schemes, I would not limit an “emergency” for purposes of
Other state courts interpret “emergency” in their Good Samaritan statutes without reference to foreseeability
{¶ 62} Notably, other states have not limited the term “emergency” in their Good Samaritan laws to circumstances that are unforeseeable. Instead, they focus both on the nature of an emergency and the purpose of Good Samaritan laws. As a California appellate court explained,
An emergency within the meaning of the Good Samaritan statutes exists when there is an urgent medical circumstance of so pressing a character that some kind of action must be taken. It would seem obvious that in determining whether a patient‘s condition constitutes such an emergency the trier of fact must consider the gravity, the certainty, and the immediacy of the consequences to be expected if no action is taken. However,
beyond observing that these are the relevant considerations, the variety of situations that would qualify as emergencies under any reasonable set of criteria is too great to admit of anything approaching a bright line rule as to just how grave, how certain, and how immediate such consequences have to be.
(Citations omitted.) Breazeal v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem. Hosp., 234 Cal.App.3d 1329, 1338, 286 Cal.Rptr. 207 (1991). See also Newhouse v. Osteopathic Examiners Bd., 159 Cal.App.2d 728, 735, 324 P.2d 687 (1958) (an emergency exists “where the exigency is of so pressing a character that some kind of action must be taken“).
{¶ 63} In formulating definitions of “emergency,” other courts have effectuated the public policies that drove the enactment of Good Samaritan laws but recognized the limitations of torts, from which the Good Samaritan doctrine devolves. For example, in Texas law, “[a]n ‘emergency’ is a condition arising suddenly and unexpectedly and not proximately caused by any negligent act or omission of the person in question and which calls for immediate action on his part and without time for deliberation.” Eoff v. Hal & Charlie Peterson Found., 811 S.W.2d 187, 191 (Tex.App.1991), citing Goolsbee v. Texas & New Orleans RR. Co., 150 Tex. 528, 243 S.W.2d 386, 388 (1951). Thus, it is not necessary to use the legal concept of foreseeability to limit the scope of an “emergency” for purposes of
Summary judgment was entered improperly by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court; the determination of emergency is a question of fact for a jury
{¶ 64} As the opinion of my fellow dissenter illustrates, reasonable minds may differ whether an emergency was extant in the cause before us. That dissenting opinion illustrates why the determination whether an emergency exists for purposes of
{¶ 65} Although this court has never directly addressed this issue, our trial courts correctly recognize that, at least in some cases, whether the statutory elements of
{¶ 67} As the Supreme Court of North Dakota has explained, a Good Samaritan act is essentially a defense that requires the proponent to establish that he or she reasonably believed that an emergency was occurring, that immediate action was required to prevent death or serious injury, and that he or she could successfully assist the party in peril. McDowell, 2001 ND 91, 626 N.W.2d 666, ¶ 21. Accord Willingham v. Hudson, 274 Ga.App. 200, 202-203, 617 S.E.2d 192 (2005) (noting that the burden of proof rested upon the proponent of the state‘s Good Samaritan immunity defense, that he discharged his burden by citing affidavits, deposition testimony, and medical records and invoices, and that the burden then shifted to the person who had been in peril to point to specific documentary evidence of record, beyond mere accusations, that gave rise to a triable issue refuting the applicability of Good Samaritan immunity).
{¶ 68} Evaluating the putative Good Samaritan requires looking at the “overall perception of the nature and severity of the injury or illness and the total emergency situation.” McDowell at ¶ 21. “Thus, the statute combines elements of the reasonable person standard as well as the aider‘s subjective state of mind. Generally, issues involving the reasonable person standard and a person‘s subjective state of mind are inappropriate for disposition by summary judgment.” Id. And the question whether there is an emergency that warrants application of a Good Samaritan statute is “an issue of fact not amenable to summary judgment disposition.” Id., citing Travers v. Vaz, 714 A.2d 603, 604 (R.I.1998). See also Charleston Station, L.L.C. v. Stephens, Nev.Sup.Ct. No. 63943, 2015 WL 9480322, *3 (Dec. 23, 2015) (in appeal arising in part from the application of Nevada‘s Good Samaritan statute, reiterating rule that “[e]xcept in rare cases where the reasonableness of the defendant‘s actions is clear, determining whether a defendant acted reasonably is a question of fact for the jury to decide“); Travers at 604 (“whether there existed an emergency situation that warranted the application of the Good Samaritan statute is also an issue of fact“); Jefferson Cty. School Dist. R-1 v. Justus, 725 P.2d 767, 771 (Colo.1986) (holding that the application of the “assumed duty” or Good Samaritan doctrine is “obviously not a purely legal question,” but rather, a mixed question of law and fact).
{¶ 69} I would hold, consistent with other states’ high and appellate courts, that whether a party has properly invoked the application of a Good Samaritan statute is a mixed question of law and fact for the jury, at least in some cases. This is such a case.
{¶ 70} I dissent as to the definition of “emergency” provided by the majority that limits emergencies to “unforeseeable” situations, and I dissent from its judgment, which affirms the grant of summary judgment on an issue that should be decided by the jury.
LANZINGER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.
{¶ 71} I agree with both paragraphs of the syllabus; they are good statements of law and just, too. But the majority opinion applies the law a bit too loosely for one simple reason: the situation that confronted Larry Reese Jr. was not an emergency; therefore, he ought not to be protected by the Good Samaritan statute.
{¶ 72} The Good Samaritan statute does not apply to this case because, although Reese provided care, he did so when urgent or immediate action was not necessary. Dennis Carter was trapped, to be sure. But he was not in pain, and he was not in danger. He was inconvenienced and he wanted to get out, but the situation did not demand urgent action. It demanded rational action, reasoned to fit the situation. Hesitation or delay was not dangerous to Carter, because he was not in pain and no detrimental change in his situation was imminent.
{¶ 73} The majority opinion defines an emergency as ““an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action,’ ” quoting Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 741 (1986). Majority opinion at ¶ 31. “Immediate action” was not needed to help Carter, as it would have been if, for example, he were about to fall off a building or if the truck had been rolling toward him. What Carter needed was a person competent to move a tractor-trailer forward without allowing any movement backward. That did not have to be done immediately or urgently—it needed to be done well. Unfortunately, it was not done well, because Reese didn‘t know how to drive a tractor-trailer. Reese should have sought assistance from a competent driver. Instead, he inserted himself into a situation that did not demand immediate action and made the situation much worse. Because the situation did not demand immediate or urgent action, Reese should not be shielded by the Good Samaritan statute, which protects only those who render care when there is an emergency.
{¶ 74} Although I agree with the syllabus, I disagree with today‘s judgment. I would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment on the merits. Accordingly, I dissent.
Markesbery & Richardson Co., L.P.A., Katherine A. Clemons, and Glenn A. Markesbery, for appellee Larry Reese Jr.
Notes
The Attorney‘s Dictionary of Medicine defines “emergency” as “[a]n urgent demand for medical or surgical action; a medical or surgical condition demanding immediate action.” 2 J.E. Schmidt, Attorney‘s Dictionary of Medicine E 71 (1999). Stedman‘s Medical Dictionary defines “emergency” as “[a]n unlooked for contingency or happening; a sudden demand for action.” Stedman‘s Medical Dictionary 456 (24th ed.1982).
Rivera v. Arana, 322 Ill.App.3d 641, 650-651, 255 Ill.Dec. 333, 749 N.E.2d 434 (2001), abrogated on other grounds by Home Star Bank & Fin. Servs. v. Emergency Care & Health Org., Ltd., 2014 IL 115526, 379 Ill.Dec. 51, 6 N.E.3d 128.