Law People

[alexjohnson16]

I'm doing an assignment for my Introduction to Coaching class and a question that is stated like this:

"Explain the Good Samaritan Law. Is a coach, who is conducting a practice, legally covered under this law if a player gets injured? Explain your answer."

I've been looking for a while and have what I think is the gist of the law and was wondering if this is okay.

"The Good Samaritan Law is a law that goes on a state-by-state basis that can provide a person with exemption of liability while they tend to an injured person. The law applies to all people in certain cases, but in all cases to medically-trained people (such as off-duty EMTs or physicians) where neglect or malpractice is not found. It can apply to an average civilian who makes the choice to help and does not try to do intentional danger."

And for the second part of this, wouldn't it be on a state-by-state basis?

Thanks.

 

[Corporate Thug]

looking it up in my torts book...

Damn, cant find the book

Anyway, what does "legally covered" mean? Is the question asking if he liable or not liable?

 

[DainBramaged]

Trying to remember from the last case I tried...

 

[alexjohnson16]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
looking it up in my torts book...

Thank you much.

 

[Corporate Thug]

found the book. Here is a good definition:

"One who fails to interfere to save another from impeding death or great bodily harm, when he might do so with little or no inconvenience to himself, and the death or great bodily harm follows as a consequence of his inaction, shall be punished criminally and shall make compensations to the party injured or to his widow and children in the case of death"

this is the common law rule, states who adopt such laws changed the text very liberally.

As to the second part of the question, i think vermont is the only state with good samaritan laws so i do think its state Dependant. On a side note, i think the coach has an affirmative duty to act regardless of good samaritan laws because a special relationship exists (Harper v. Herman, 499 N.W.2d 472)

 

[alexjohnson16]

CT, I'm interpreting as legally covered as not liable.

 

[axelfox]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
found the book. Here is a good definition:

"One who fails to interfere to save another from impeding death or great bodily harm, when he might do so with little or no inconvenience to himself, and the death or great bodily harm follows as a consequence of his inaction, shall be punished criminally and shall make compensations to the party injured or to his widow and children in the case of death"

this is the common law rule, states who adopt such laws changed the text very liberally.

As to the second part of the question, i think vermont is the only state with good samaritan laws so i do think its state Dependant. On a side note, i think the coach has an affirmative duty to act regardless of good samaritan laws because a special relationship exists (Harper v. Herman, 499 N.W.2d 472)

Did you Shepardize that? 😀

 

[Savarak]

everytime i hear that law i think Seinfeld.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Usually when I hear of "good samaritan laws" it is in regards to the situation where a person trying to help another is protected by them.

Example:
A person comes upon a car wreck and pulls the victim out of the car. If the victim is cut or otherwise injured by the person's actions, the person is not liable in that the intentions of the person were good.

 

[GasX]

The key aspect of the law IMO is that you are "covered" if you administer aid up to the level of training you have received.

If you have CPR and some first aid training and you try to perform open heart surgery, expect a lawsuit. If you are a "regular civilian" and you put some ice on a spreaned ankle while you wait for an ambulance, you are all set.