Revised Connecticut Law Protects Medical Professionals in Emergency Situations
By Lichel Johnston '27
Connecticut recently revised legislation that abrogates the common law of negligence by shielding certain medical professionals and first responders from liability for personal injuries resulting from their ordinary negligence, provided that the medical professional or first aid responder renders emergency aid gratuitously and not in the ordinary course of their employment or practice. Common law negligence is made up of the following elements: (1) Duty: The defendant must owe the plaintiff a duty to conform his conduct to a standard necessary, (2) Breach: The defendant’s conduct, by way of either an act or omission, must breach this duty of care (3) Causation: Defendant’s breach of duty must be the cause of the harm suffered by the Plaintiff, and (4) Damages: The plaintiff must suffer harm or some quantifiable loss as a result.
Connecticut’s “Good Samaritan Law,” embodied in C.G.S § 52-557b(a)(1) does away with the aforementioned common law requirements by shielding the following individuals from liability for negligence if they are rendering emergency medical aid for free and not in the ordinary course of their employment or practice: 1) someone licensed to practice medicine or surgery, 2) someone licensed to practice dentistry, 3) a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse, 4) a medical technician, 5) any person operating a cardiopulmonary respirator or that is trained in CPR, or 6) a person operating an automatic external defibrillator. The law provides that the above-named groups of people “shall not be liable” for civil damages for any personal injuries resulting from any acts or omissions by such person in rendering emergency medical care that may constitute ordinary negligence. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross, willful, or wanton negligence. (1) Connecticut courts have also held that the immunity also does not apply to for-profit entities, such as ambulance companies, that employ the individuals listed above. (2)
For example, imagine that a concert-goer is suffering a medical emergency such as an opiate overdose during a crowded performance at a music venue, and shouts for a doctor ring out. Mike Davis, a physician in the audience, makes his way over to the stricken individual and begins rendering emergency medical care, but, in the course of doing so, accidentally kneels on the stricken person’s hand, breaking several of the metacarpals in the person's palm.
Under common law, Dr. Davis would have a duty of care not to kneel or otherwise injure the person’s hand, but he breached that duty by carelessly kneeling on the person’s hand while rendering aid, which was the cause of the injury to the person’s hand. Therefore Dr. Davis would be liable to the person he injured under the common law theory of negligence. However, under Connecticut's “Good Samaritan Law,” the victim would not be able to sue Dr. Davis for the injuries to his hand because Dr. Davis, a licensed medical practitioner, rendered emergency medical care outside the scope of his employment as he was at a concert –these facts show that Dr. Davis enjoys immunity in Connecticut because of the state’s Good Samaritan Law.
Yet if Dr. Davis was previously informed that the victim had an allergy to the active ingredient in Narcan, and he still proceeded to administer Narcan despite knowing the adverse effects the drug would have on the victim, Dr. Davis would not be entitled to immunity under the Good Samaritan Law because it would constitute gross negligence. The Connecticut Supreme Court has defined gross negligence as “very great or excessive negligence, or as the want of, or failure to exercise, even slight or scant care or slight diligence.” (3) The same Court has also construed gross negligence to mean “...no care at all, or the omission of such care which even the most inattentive and thoughtless seldom fail to make their concern, evincing a reckless temperament and lack of care, practically [willful] in its nature.”(4) Therefore Dr. Davis’s conduct in the second scenario would constitute gross negligence as defined by the Connecticut Supreme Court because unlike in the first scenario, where Dr. Davis accidentally knelt on the victim’s hand, he still chose to administer the drug in the second scenario, despite knowing that the patient had an allergy to Narcan and would suffer dangerous repercussions, thus showing a reckless disregard for the health and safety of the stricken person that he was trying to assist. These actions under the circumstances described above are so inattentive and thoughtless that they are basically intentional, and as a consequence of such willful and reckless conduct, Dr. Davis would not be immune from liability under the Good Samaritan law.
The ostensible purpose of the Good Samaritan law is to incentivize professionals to help during emergency situations. The legislature decided to abrogate the common law of negligence as it applies to the above-named groups in the context of rendering emergency medical aid because doctors and other medical professionals would be less likely to render this aid if they could be sued or held liable for any negligent acts or omissions committed in the course of rendering the aid. It would be easier for the off-duty medical professional to avoid liability under common law by idly waiting for on-duty firefighters or EMTs to arrive. Thus, the legislature has made a determination that it is against the public interest to permit someone to sue or hold liable a “good samaritan” who makes a decision to gratuitously and voluntarily help another person in need when the circumstances are exigent.
One of the obvious benefits of this policy is that more people who experience sudden medical emergencies will be saved because more trained first responders are willing to provide their knowledge, expertise, and assistance to those who may suddenly find themselves in need of emergent care. In the case of an emergency, one would not have to wait for the arrival or help of a doctor which can be essential in the long run to the livelihood and well-being of patients. This benefit not only serves those individuals who are in need of emergency assistance but also society as a whole; this new law should decrease response times to medical emergencies because more trained professionals who are on the scene of an emergency (but otherwise off-duty) will be inclined to lend their time and expertise assisting those in need of emergent care. The law’s effects should also ease the burden of existing on-duty first responders.
The “Good Samaritan Law” also eases the burden on first responders in other ways. If a trained doctor, nurse, or EMT is already on scene prior to the arrival of on-duty first responders, then chances are that the first responders will have a clearer understanding of what the situation is before they arrive by virtue of that information being relayed from the off-duty “good samaritan” to the emergency services dispatcher, The communication of reliable facts about what is happening on scene will reduce the amount of time that the on-duty firefighters or EMTs have to spend conducting triage, which will allow them to begin treating the patient more expeditiously.
This law benefits off-duty medical professionals because it shields them from liability for "doing the right thing" by helping another in need of their expertise, which will also benefit the courts. If people can't sue for negligence as a result of their receiving emergency care from an off-duty medical professional, there will be fewer lawsuits. Furthermore, this law should result in decreased medical malpractice insurance premiums because if an insurance company does not have to cover acts rendered gratuitously during emergency situations then the financial risk to the insurance company is lowered. The downstream effect of this is that the savings will be passed on to the consumers of the insurance, i.e. the medical professionals, in the form of lower premiums which should in turn reduce the cost of medical care to patients.
Courageous individuals devote their time and resources to the medical field doing something that is essential to our flourishing as a society: saving lives. Even these incredible essential workers cannot prevent tragedy from striking, and while innocent lives can be lost, first responders are often named the guilty party of wrongful death claims which the Good Samaritan Law helps prevent. Thus, it is against the public’s benefit to permit someone to sue or hold liable a “good samaritan” in Connecticut who makes a decision to gratuitously and voluntarily help another in exigent circumstances.
Endnotes
(1) Connecticut General Statutes § 52-557b(a)(1). Westlaw. Accessed October 17, 2023.
(2) Bember v. American Medical Response, Inc., Connecticut Judicial Branch. Accessed November 1, 2023
(3) Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314, 338 (2005). Westlaw. Accessed October 30, 2023.
(4) 19 Perry Street, LLC v. Unionville Water Company, 294 Conn. 611, 631 n. 11 (2010). Westlaw. Accessed November 1, 2023
