Do you assume any legal liability if you take an injured person to the hospital? 27 Answers as of June 03, 2013

If you happen upon an injured person can you take them to the hospital?

Ask a Local Attorney. 100% Anonymous. Free Answers.

Free Case Evaluation by a Local Lawyer: Click here
David Hoines Law
David Hoines Law | David Hoines
Yes, but do it responsibility and carefully.
Answer Applies to: Florida
Replied: 10/12/2011
Lombardi Law Firm
Lombardi Law Firm | Steve Lombardi
Not generally. In Iowa there is a statute that protects people who volunteer to assist in saving another person in need due to an accident. That can be extended but Im hesitant to explore the entire law in a public forum.
Answer Applies to: Iowa
Replied: 10/10/2011
Law Offices of Bodey & Bodey, PLLC
Law Offices of Bodey & Bodey, PLLC | Michael Bodey
Really, the call of the question, as I see it is, should individuals when they happen upon an injured person attempt to render aid in the face of incurring liability? More succinctly stated, can a rescuer incur liability when rescuing? After reading the question, it rang clear to me that really what we are talking about here is the Good Samaritan law, versus the rescue doctrine in Washington State. The Good Samaritan law allows for immunity for acts protecting those who chose to serve and tend to others who are injured or ill. Quite frankly, these types of laws are intended to reduce bystander hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Remember that these Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and will also very in relation to other legal principles. That being said, a general review of the rescue doctrine would be required here. Tortfeasor's, or individual who create circumstances that cause injuries to another, are liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also to the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue said victim. Again, the subtleties surrounding this theory or type of law are going to deviate, to a degree, depending on the jurisdiction for which you find yourself. For example, one states rule on this matter may differ from another states rule. In addition, if you find yourself at the federal level, it might be stated that if a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable for not only the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue the victim. This doctrine was originally created in case law by Wagner v. International Railway in the years 1926. Justice Cardozo stated, "the emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the timing of a deliverer. He is accountable, as if he had." Nevertheless, that still does not answer the question, "can the rescuer acquire liability during the rescue?" Although rare, this would require an extreme and or gross deviation of some act by a rescuer, which further caused injury to the original injured party. What that circumstance and or fact pattern is, eludes my imagination. One would have to peer into a crystal ball and examine it factually. Because I do not possess a crystal ball which would allow me to do that it is a tough question to answer. That being said, I believe it would be laborious to argue that a rescuer had or could sustain liability if that same rescuer recognized an imminent peril to a third party, caused by the defendant, and that rescuer attempted to exercise reasonable care in effectuating the rescue. However, that is not to say that it is impossible for a rescuer not to incur liability under a given circumstance. The question will likely revolve around what, "is the exercise of reasonable care," when effectuating a rescue. I believe, a defendant would be hard-pressed to blame the rescuer as being partially liable. Further, and call me a hopeless romantic, but I believe in juries and their ability to see through such arguments. If you are taking one to a hospital in order to rescue them because, "someone else" originally injured them, then can you incur liability on the way to the hospital? For the sake of argument, let us assume that you were driving a vehicle. The question would really be, was your driving while going to the hospital, somehow unreasonable, or not what a reasonable person/rescuer would have done under the same or similar circumstances. If you can answer the question in the affirmative, then yes, the rescuer could possibly obtain or incur some liability. I have to reiterate that an examination of the circumstances would be paramount here. I believe from a public policy standpoint that the laws in the state of Washington, would rather produce rescuers and retreat or attempt to hinder the creation of new defendants, i.e. that being the rescuer. One such line of reasoning would be that any other intent would place a chilling effect on the average citizen rendering assistance to another in a recognized peril. In short, laws and the state of Washington would rather produce rescuers, who render aid to persons in danger, rather than bystanders who could have helped, but chose not to for fear of legal action.
Answer Applies to: Washington
Replied: 10/6/2011
AyerHoffman, LLP
AyerHoffman, LLP | David C. Ayer
The answer to your question is not as simple as you may expect. Many states have "good Samaritan" laws which protect persons assisting injured people from liability claims arising from inadvertent injuries caused during their attempt to assist. Example: If you pull someone by the arm from a burning car, but dislocate the arm in the process, so long as the act of pulling them by the arm was reasonable,you will not be liable for the additional injury. Many states also follow the Rescue Doctrine. If you begin to rescue someone in peril, and the imperiled person relies on your rescue attempt, you must make a reasonable effort to complete the rescue. Example: If you attempt to rescue a swimmer caught in a riptide and the swimmer stops swimming to allow you to tow them back to safety, you will be liable if you change your mind and let go and they drown. Understand, under most circumstances, you have no legal duty to rescue someone in peril unless you caused them to be in peril or have some legally recognized duty to the person (parent to child, for example). Finally, if you pick up an injured person to transport them to a hospital, you have a duty to take care in the process. If you place the person in your car, drive negligently, and cause an accident, you would be liable for any additional physical injuries to the rescued person, for any exacerbation of existing physical injuries, and for any other injuries the person suffers proximately caused by your negligence.
Answer Applies to: Massachusetts
Replied: 10/6/2011
David F. Stoddard
David F. Stoddard | David F. Stoddard
You do not assume any responsibility for their medical bill just because you transport them. You are not responsible for the injury itself just because you transport them. If you cause an accident along the way, and further injure them, you would be responsible for this, just as you would be if you caused an accident injuring a passenger in another car..
Answer Applies to: South Carolina
Replied: 10/6/2011
    Bernard Huff, Attorney/Mediator
    Bernard Huff, Attorney/Mediator | Bernard Huff
    If one is negligent in his/her transport of an injured person to a hospital or another location and aggravates an injury, that person may be liable. If at all possible, it may be wise to call the appropriate medical authority to move an injured person.
    Answer Applies to: Indiana
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    R. D. Kelly Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
    R. D. Kelly Law Firm, P.L.L.C. | Robert Kelly
    RCW 4.24.300 releases emergency caregivers from liability when the victim is negligently injured by the caregiver in the course of rendering emergency transportation or care. This statute may have been designed by the Legislature in response to the concern that the threat of litigation would otherwise discourage citizens from offering emergency aid to others. The statute shows a clear public policy valuing a very limited class of good Samaritans who render emergency care or transportation.
    Answer Applies to: Washington
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Law Office of Mark P. Miller | Mark Miller
    There's the "Good Samaritan" Act, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the victim won't sue you if something goes wrong. Whether they can prevail is a different story. If you're in a city that has ambulance service you'd probably be better calling 911 and requesting an ambulance, since they also can provide medical help.
    Answer Applies to: Colorado
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Kirshner & Groff
    Kirshner & Groff | Richard M. Kirshner
    It depends on many factors.
    Answer Applies to: Florida
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Dwyer, Black & Lyle, LLP
    Dwyer, Black & Lyle, LLP | Kevin Habberfield
    Of course you can take them to the hospital without the assumption of any legal liability unless you do so in such a reckless manner that you actually cause them more injuries. By reckless, I mean extreme recklessness, not negligence. Think of firing a wounded person out of a cannon towards a hospital, or something crazy like that, when you could simply drive them. The law wants people to do this sort of thing and has made a policy decision not to subject those who try to help to liability. Not only that, even if the law was different, I'd do it anyway simply because it's the right thing to do. Also, in some professions people are required to render aid when possible. It just makes sense. Keep helping out, someday you may be the one who needs help.
    Answer Applies to: New York
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    The Law Office of Stephen R. Chesley, LLC
    The Law Office of Stephen R. Chesley, LLC | Stephen R. Chesley
    Generally speaking no. If you are a good Samaritan and are assisting another person, you would not be liable. It is unclear of why you are asking this question, if you come to assist someone and do not further his injury, you are acting in the capacity of a good Samaritan.
    Answer Applies to: New York
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Law Office of Jared Altman
    Law Office of Jared Altman | Jared Altman
    Yes. You must exercise reasonable care in getting them there.
    Answer Applies to: New York
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Paul Whitfield and Associates P.A.
    Paul Whitfield and Associates P.A. | Paul L. Whitfield
    Good Samaritan rule: don't do any further harm and you should not have A PROBLEM.
    Answer Applies to: North Carolina
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Oliver Law Office
    Oliver Law Office | Jami Oliver
    Ohio has a good Samaritan law. That means that you can help a person who is in need of help, including taking them to a hospital, and not be legally liable. However, if you begin to help someone so that others turn away because they assume you are helping, and you fail to follow through causing the person to suffer injury, then you could still be liable. The basic question you are asking, however, is covered by the good Samaritan laws.
    Answer Applies to: Ohio
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    The Law Office of Josh Lamborn, P.C.
    The Law Office of Josh Lamborn, P.C. | Josh Lamborn
    The general rule in most states is that if you do nothing, you bear no liability. However, if you choose to help, you have a duty not to make the situation worse.
    Answer Applies to: Oregon
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Vincent J. Bernabei LLC
    Vincent J. Bernabei LLC | Vincent J. Bernabei
    If the injured person is not a family member, you have no liability for hospital charges. The better course of action would be to call 911 and have a paramedic transport the injured person.
    Answer Applies to: Oregon
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Rose, Senders & Bovarnick, LLC
    Rose, Senders & Bovarnick, LLC | Paul S. Bovarnick
    No. Unless you do something negligent which causes further injury to the person you are trying to help, you will not be liable for their care.
    Answer Applies to: Oregon
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Holzer Edwards
    Holzer Edwards | Kurt Holzer
    Answer Applies to: Idaho
    Replied: 6/3/2013
    Newland & Newland LLP
    Newland & Newland LLP | Gary A. Newland, B.A. J.D.
    If you can help someone, you should. There are some laws that can protect a good Samaritan.
    Answer Applies to: Illinois
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Patrick M Lamar Attorney
    Patrick M Lamar Attorney | Patrick M Lamar
    No, unless if you do something to make the condition worse.
    Answer Applies to: Alabama
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    No, unless you are grossly negligent in providing the aid, you are immune under California's Good Samaritan Laws.
    Answer Applies to: California
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    Law Office of Mark J. Leonardo
    Law Office of Mark J. Leonardo | Mark Leonardo
    California, like many states, has a good Samaritan law. No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered. But see this article that discusses a recent case that somewhat holds to the contrary about moving an injured person. Whether taking someone to the hospital falls within what they are talking about in the article is for you to decide.
    Answer Applies to: California
    Replied: 10/6/2011
    The Law Office of Harry E. Hudson, Jr.
    The Law Office of Harry E. Hudson, Jr. | Harry E. Hudson, Jr.
    Probably. There potential good Samaritan immunity issues but I would think you have to do whatever you are doing with care.
    Answer Applies to: California
    Replied: 10/6/2011
Click to View More Answers:
12 3 4 5 Free Legal QuestionsConnect with a local attorney