In Florida, F.S. 768.13 is the Good Samaritan Act, which spells out immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances. The law says that any person – including those who practice medicine for a living – who gratuitously (not for charge) and in good faith render emergency treatment or care to someone either directly in response to an emergency or in a situation that arises out of a public health emergency without the objection of the victim or victims won’t be held liable. This statute generally applies when individuals are at the site of an emergency, outside of a hospital, doctor’s office or some other location that has the necessary medical equipment.

There are some very specific circumstances that have to be in place for a medical professional not to be liable for negligent care they render, but this could be used as one possible defense.

In the recent personal injury lawsuit of Carter v. Reese, the Ohio Supreme Court was tasked with determining a person could be liable for injury caused while attempting to help someone.

According to court records, plaintiff was a truck driver for a company called S&S. He pulled his tractor-trailer into a loading dock owned by another firm. The purpose was to deliver one empty trailer and pick up another. After he affixed the second trailer to the truck, he pulled the truck about six inches away from the loading dock and locked the brake of the trailer so the wheels couldn’t move. As he pulled himself onto the dock to close the door of the trailer, he slipped. His leg got stuck between the loading dock and the trailer. At that point, he didn’t feel any physical pain, but he couldn’t get himself free. He started to yell for help and bang on the loading dock door, trying to get someone to come and help him.

Approximately 10 minutes later, defendant heard plaintiff and drove to the lot. Plaintiff told him to get into plaintiff’s truck and move it about a foot forward but, “Whatever you do, don’t put it in reverse.”

Defendant’s response: “No problem.”

But it was a problem because as soon as defendant got behind the wheel and put it in neutral, he realized he didn’t know how to operate the rig. The truck revved three times. The air brake released. The tractor rolled backwards and broke plaintiff’s leg. So severe were his injuries, his right leg had to be amputated above the knee.

Plaintiff and his wife sued for personal injury alleging negligence. However, they did not assert defendant had engaged in willful or wanton misconduct – which would have been the only way to overcome the Good Samaritan statute that defendant countered with.

Trial court granted summary judgment to defendant and the court of appeals affirmed, explaining that in this type of emergency situation where a man’s leg was pinned between the truck and the loading dock, defendant’s actions in trying to move the truck did constitute as emergency care because he was trying to resolve the emergency created by plaintiff. Further, defendant’s misconduct was not wanton or willful.

Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. Plaintiff had argued the state statute was applicable only to those who render emergency medical treatment, but the court rejected that interpretation, finding that if the legislature had wanted to restrict it to those circumstances, it could have done so.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Carter v. Reese, Aug. 30, 2016, Ohio Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Tundidor v. Miami-Dade County – Canal Doesn’t Fall Under Maritime Law in Negligence Case, Aug. 15, 2016, Miami Personal Injury Attorney Blog

Given the fact that a huge percentage of today’s young children attend day care for at least some portion of the day while their parents work (11 million, according to Child Care Aware of America), many of these injuries occur in a day care setting. There is a troubling tendency by some child care providers to take the approach that, “accidents happen.” In truth, accidents and child injuries are much more likely at facilities where proper safety guidelines are not clear and where staffers are not adequately vetted or appropriately supervised.

Day cares in Florida have a duty to ensure children are safe from reasonably foreseeable harms. There is a lowered expectation of self protection when it comes to children. That is, we know that they are immature and undeveloped and thus do not fully appreciate certain dangers that we might consider open and obvious to an adult. Further, when a person or facility accepts the responsibility of caring for that child, a special relationship is established that requires them to exercise a heightened duty of care.

A number of recent cases of reported day care injuries across the country should alert parents to the possible dangers and of the rights they may have to compensation.

One recent case out of Birmingham, AL involves a toddler who was seriously injured after he was struck in the head by a falling television. According to AL.com, the child was asleep on the floor when another child tripped over an exposed cord. That caused a television set that was on a dresser to fall on top of the boy, resulting in severe head trauma and other injuries. His parents say he is continuing to receive speech and physical therapy, and it could be some time before the full extent of his head injuries are known.

They have since filed a lawsuit against the day care, alleging the workers failed to use reasonable care in ensuring the site was free from foreseeable harms because they did not properly secure the television or put away the exposed cords. The family is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. The day care has reportedly responded to the complaint by alleging the child’s condition was the result of existing injury, infirmity or disease. The parents deny this, saying he was “completely healthy” prior to this incident.

There is concern about whether the facility had liability insurance at the time of the accident.

Another day care injury lawsuit was recently weighed by the Ohio Supreme Court. In World Harvest Church v. Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., a day care center that was part of a megachurch was ordered to pay $2.87 million in damages to the family of a child who was struck repeatedly by a day care worker. The question before the state high court was whether that action was intentional misconduct or corporal punishment. If it was the latter, the day care’s liability insurer would be responsible to pick up the tab for $1.47 million. However, the court ruled the worker’s actions amounted to intentional misconduct, meaning the church would be responsible for the entire amount.

If your child has been injured as a result of poor care or supervision at a day care in Florida, we can help.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

World Harvest Church v. Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., May 12, 2016, Ohio Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Florida Supreme Court Ends Attorney Fee Caps on Workers’ Compensation, May 15, 2016, Miami Injury Attorney Blog