Jump to content

Talk:Good Samaritan law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleGood Samaritan law was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 16, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Update

[edit]

This article has been extensively reworked, expanded and referenced. All major statements have been referenced, using appropriate sources, with plenty of examples of state and provincial Good Samaritan Laws referenced, along with some very interesting commentary on those laws from major journals. I would normally have included images to illustrate, however, in this case I could find nothing that seemed particularly relevant. Specific references have been made to Japan, for civil law, and to Australia, as another example of English Common Law. Given that the article is based in a priniciple of English Common Law, and one which not all Commonwealth countries have on the books, at that, it is unlikely that we are going to get any more global than the article already is. The globalize and facts disputed tags at the head of the article have been removed, since both have been more than satisfied. I'm submitting the article for re-evaluation, and hope to get it from its' current 'Start' status to a 'B' status, based on the changes made. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this would fit into the article, but I found it interesting to note that in the US, even a medical doctor is not legally required to assist someone that they see choking or having a heart attack. Apparantly, even if a doctor sees a stranger choking to death on a wire,taco bell he or she is legally allowed to just stand there and watch the person die. Obviously almost any doctor would still try to help, but I found this pretty interesting. (A law professor of mine said on one of his law school exams, he got a question wrong when he wrote that someone is at least required to make some effort to help someone if it seems like they can do so without any possible injury to themselves (ie calling for an ambulance.) -RandomDuder

Hate to shake up your law prof on this one, but he may be talking about a local reality. The general principle in law is called 'abandonment', and while you may not be charged criminally (as with criminal negligence) your failure to act is certainly accountable in a civil court. If you have the ability or special knowledge (as with a physician or paramedic) to assist someone and you drive by without helping, and that person becomes aware of what you have done...you might very well be successfully sued! This is one of the main reasons why doctors stopped getting license plates with MD prefixes and paramedics stopped putting stickers all over their personal cars. Some medics (who don't wish to stop at accidents for example) have deliberately stopped carrying any type of patient assessment or care equipment, so that they can legitimately say that they had no tools or protective equipment to help with. Hard on the docs too, though...when they stop to help, the risk of malpractice suits goes WAY UP, but they can also get sued if they get caught not stopping...damned if you do, damned if you don't! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever hosed my contribution on 1/7/2003 re: employer relationships, duty to respond, and security guards not being covered by Good Samaritan because of duty to respond -- thanks for nothing. I'll put it back sometime when I have time, but it would be nice if you would.

History shows exactly two revisions, both by me. Are you sure you didn't preview and forget to save? Tokerboy 04:51 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Checking web server logs:

Is this you? (Connecting from a different machine if so.) These were both previews; I see no saves on this article. (A save would have resulted in a redirect, so a return code of '302' instead of '200'.) Either 'save' didn't get pushed, or some external factor prevented it from happening correctly (network error, your computer crashed, etc). --Brion 05:08 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)


The website in the link doesn't seem to say that you'll get sued for giving aid. It simply advises tourists not to give aid, probably because it might be dangerous for them to attempt. The same would apply to anyone giving aid without the proper knowledge. The sentence just strikes me as silly; litigation may be a problem in the US, but this statement is unsupported and mean-spirited, IMO.--68.100.24.73 19:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, no objections, I'm taking it out--68.100.24.73 21:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there another type of "Good Samaritan Law", where an onlooker can be punished for FAILING to give aid? That was the central plot of the final episode of Seinfeld. I know, it's just a TV show; but when I saw that I remembered hearing on the news that some places had enacted that sort of law. ShawnVW, 3/17/05

Reference to Seinfeld

[edit]

I removed the following fragment from the article, still I thought it's at least worth keeping it at the discussion page:

This version of a Good Samaritan law was the subject of attention in the final episode of the Seinfeld television sitcom (which is set in New York City), where Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine were sentenced to a year in prison for failing to assist a carjacking victim. In fact, they videotaped the incident, for their humor, which was used as evidence against them in their trial. The video showed them laughing at the victim and calling him insulting names while the crime was taking place.
Thank you wikipedia, I had no idea this was real. OMG --68.9.193.246 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fiction. But the remaining paragraph does not make a whole lot of sense and certainly does not throw any light on the good Samaritan law itself, criminal or civil or duty-to-rescue. 193.113.57.165 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Good Samaritan Law Report

[edit]

as this is still unreferenced, i removed it from the article. Some of it is redudant, other parts are unsubstantiated, but mostly it's unreferenced. Not to mention long. Text below. JamieJones talk 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Samaritan Law Report

[edit]

can't find the reference to this. Need reference or it will be removed!

The Good Samaritan Laws have been established in many States, Alabama is just one of them. These laws were enacted to help to protect the doctors and nurses that help victims and patients from any liability or any civil damages from care that is given in an emergency situation. The definition or actual statement is: a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing.' Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment. This Good Samaritan Law not only applies to doctors and nurses, but it also applies to other rescue people such as firefighters and police officers. A Good Samaritan Law protects any government official that helps to protect and provide for the people and citizens of both the country and this state. This law protects the majority of people that try to help, however, it does not protect everyone. In order for it to protect, the health care provider cannot be completely careless, they must try to help the person, not take their life. The person providing the help must have consent from the victim before giving and form of care, and the person who is providing the help must do it voluntarily. You are not protected completely by this law; you may still be able to be sued by a victim. The professional should not leave the patient unless another professional that is of equal or greater professionalism arrives to provide medical attention to the victim. “ Negligence and gross misconduct are not defensible.” It states: “ A person who, in good-faith renders emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency without the expectation or receiving or intending to receive compensation from such injured person for such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of such care or assistance.” Federal and State Good Samaritan Laws exist to protect those who assist victims of an accident or crime and the victims themselves. This Good Samaritan Law is to help keep people from not wanting to help others in fear of being accused of “wrongdoing” or being sued for rescuing a “damsel in distress.” One of the readings of this law is the one provided to all states in general in Black’s Law- 7th edition. It states: 'A statute that exempts from liability a person (such as an off-duty physician) who voluntarily renders aid to another in imminent danger but negligently causes injury while rendering the aid. Some form of good-samaritan legislation has been enacted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.'

Differences?

[edit]

It seems that there are two types of GS laws in this article - those that require a person provide some level of assistance, and those that merely protect people who voluntarily act.

The Ontario Good Samaritan Act (similar or identical to the one quoted) merely protects voluntary providers of first aid from liability. I think this is distinct from the "Seinfeld" type law which most or all of the intro of this article discusses - that people are obligated by law to assist (minimally, such as calling for help). I think the intro should be retooled to make this distinction. TheHYPO 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed image

[edit]

I've removed the christian imagery from the top of the page. While I appreciate the relevant connection, I don't think it lends to the article except to unnecessarily emphasize a minor connection between a name given to the collective statutes and a bible story. The link to "Good Samaritan" is provided and I imagine that is sufficient. CheshireKatz 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A "minor connection?" The Biblical parable is the origin, both linguistically and culturally, to the name and entire concept of "Good Samaritan." Try to find a dictionary or encyclopedic entry on the subject that does not reference this connection; in fact most give the exact reference where the story can be found. There's a reason these laws were given this name, and not called something like: "The Good-Doer Laws" or "Rescuers Laws." Hamil1528

US: which is it?

[edit]

The intro and the "In the United States" section state that the US version(s) ARE to protect those who give aid, not to require people to give aid, with no exception mentioned... then the Seinfeld reference goes on to say how Massachusetts has a requirement. Is this wrong? Is Mass. the only exception? Are there more? It should be mentioned before the Seinfeld section either way I think. Msgohan 08:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Good Samaritan law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead is a bit short, and does not summarize all the sections (notably consent and concerning professional personel). The entire section "general guidelines" is a list; it should be rewritten into prose. Under the Canada section, it is a bit confusing whether only these four provinces (plus Quebec) has Good Samaritan laws, or if all of them have it. I've done a small copyedit. A few tips: Don't wikilink in headers; instead use the {{main}} template. Also, do not use blod face for such words as never; instead use italics for emphasis.
    OK, did a good bit of copyediting, expanding, trimming, and reformatting. Let me know what you think? Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Is this "in popular culture" really necessary? This is after all an encyclopedia, not a sit-com guide—especially taking into account the broadness of the law, it has probably occurred as part of hundreds of episodes and movies.
    I don't have a problem with nuking it, but another editor invested some work in cleaning it up--I'd like to get his input before arbitrarily doing so. The Seinfeld series finale, however, is an understandably major popular culture appearance--If there's any one popular culture reference that merits inclusion, that would be it. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think we definitely need to keep the Seinfeld reference in. I found a NYT reference on ProQuest which discusses the finale in detail and explicitly calls the statute a Good Samaritan law. There's an LA times review as well, but the NYT review looks more in depth. I'd call that enough sourcing to keep the Seinfeld ref in. The Desparate Housewives reference seems rather recentist to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like it is quite a notable incident then, in which case I have no problem with it staying. Arsenikk (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Just an idea: are there no pictures on the commons of an actual situation? If there are, it would be a good illustration, if there isn't, there is nothing to do about it.
    Commons has 23 relevant images, most of which depict the parable rather than the legal context. We could try and find an EMS/rescue image that obviously involves laypersons vs. professional rescuers, but there would not likely be any documentation that a Good Samaritan law directly applied. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave this to you discretion; the article is illustrated, and as such meets the GA criteria. A two relevant ones I found digging around the commons included Image:Suicide-prague.jpg and Image:2008TourDeTaiwan Stage7 2nd crash.jpg, though this is far from a complete search. Arsenikk (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad pictures, but I'm not sure either one would show well on a thumbnail. I think we'll stick with what's there now, until a bit more compelling one comes along. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I have placed the article on hold; there are some issues in the prose to deal with, mainly related to the use of lists. Plus I would like feedback on the comment on the "in popular culture". If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to express them. Arsenikk (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I will begin addressing these issues promptly. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made an effort to address each issue you've raised. Please review and let me know what other improvements you would like to see made. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with a Good Article! Arsenikk (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Samaritans

[edit]

I removed

While this traveller (a Samaritan) had no national, cultural, or religious affiliation to the injured man (in the story, assumed to be a Jew, with whom the Samaritans had had a long history of enmity), in compassion he aided the injured man, and did all in his power to ensure his welfare and recovery.

which is too detailed for this article (the HatNote lk should do the needed job), and botches the facts:

The religion of the Samaritan ethnic group involved having taken on what they understood to be the obligations of Jews, during the exile to Babylon, and many Jews of Gospel times regarded them not just pagans but effectively as having a heretical relationship to Judaism.
I'm pretty sure there's a scriptural reference (epistles? Sermon on the Mount?) to not quibbling about whether to worship JHWH in the temple in Jerusalem or on the mountain in Samaritan country. In any case, the parable contrasts a Jew of Pharisee inclination (and someone else) with the Samaritan, implying that some self-proclaimed Jews didn't understand who the "neighbor" referred to by the Ten Commandments was, as well as did one Samaritan.
"All in his power"? I think not, tho extremely generously.
--Jerzy•t 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Good Samaritan law/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This page concentrates only on North America even though many European countries have this type of law. As it is not global in scope it does not at this time fulfill WP:GA criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice suggestion for improvement, but nowhere in WP:WIAGA does it require that a good article have a comprehensively global view of a topic. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is criteria number 3 "Broad in its coverage" [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is in your interpretation of criterion 3. As is, I don't see anything that convinces me (including a review of the WT:WIAGA archives looking for "worldwide" or "global") that your view is a widely held interpretation of criterion 3--can you point me to something that supports your view? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested further opinions... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any of them pan out? Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

  1. The lead starts with "Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws" this needs to be more global
  2. "In some jurisdictions", "Not all jurisdictions"? One should clarify this. How about a map showing which states / countries that have common law and those which do not...
  3. The history is touched on in the lead though unreferenced and than is not dealt with in the body of the text. This article needs a a section on history. When for example did these laws come into existence? [2]
  4. The image in the lead is French yet the law as it applies in France is not discussed. Here is a paper on France [3]
  5. This ref says all 50 states have laws "All 50 states have Good Samaritan laws that vary in scope and conditions but that match, supplement" [4] An important point that one does not get from the text
  6. There has been a great deal of discussion about how GSL applies in airplanes. [5] and [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing refs with suggestions. I'll see what I can do to incorporate these over the next few days. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you need any help getting papers drop me a line. I have full access to most stuff.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on point of disagreement. While worldwide coverage (e.g., WP:BIAS) is not a GA requirement per se, broad coverage is, and that means the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Exactly what this implies involves some subjective interpretation and judgment, which is one reason that GA reviews are conducted by human beings rather than bots. In some cases, it may be reasonable to argue that an article about a topic of global interest (in this case in most common law countries) does not address the main aspects if it only concentrates on the North American case. I suggest that the reviewer here applies his judgment. If the outcome is disputed, renomination or community GAR are available to obtain input from other editors. Geometry guy 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I do not think this meets GA criteria. If you wish me to move this to a community assement I will else I can delist it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a question a while ago, and today is the first time it's been answered. I would suggest that moving to delist is premature in light of the delay. I've made some improvements to the article, but not had a lot of luck finding ProQuest references with which to expand European coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Australia, New Zealand, and other UK Commonwealth countries (India?)? Geometry guy 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those too. Now that school's back in session, I have access to ProQuest, but ProQuest is primarily a US/Canada based publications indexing service, so I haven't gotten anything new to use. I have yet to really dig into the rest of the suggestions here, but I can. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a copy of journal articles let me know.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked at this article at just first glance and I think that it should lose its GA status. We have a Globalize tag at the top of the article since December 2009 and multiple citations needed. At closer examination, there is a big consern with the references, shown right here. Any comments? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure... the "Globalize" tag has been disputed since it was added, Globalization is not a GA criterion, and the reference tool you're looking at is for FA, not GA. I don't debate that this article could be improved, but GA is not FA, and none of the complaints against it have demonstrated areas where WP:WIAGA is not met. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look carefully at the link, you can see that two references are dead and some other references have problems as well. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have delisted this article due to issues with references and lack of global scope. Once these are addressed please reapply for GA status. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above comment, can you please detail the rationale for your delisting? Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Geometry guy recommends this can either be "renomination" or opened as a "community GAR". It had been open a long time and I have continued concerns about limited scope.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nation-specific sub-sections

[edit]

I have created an Ireland entry, under Europe. I've limited the text considerably, as there's potentially a lot to discuss here? (IANAL) Two discussion points:

  • The Irish Law Reform commission report is relevant, and potentially a good research starting point for all common law countries in this area.
  • How large / detailed should Nation-specific sub-section get. I have matched size of the other country's entries, approximately.

segurador (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

summary issues

[edit]

First, the summary starts out with pointing out that good samaritan laws are not to be confused with duty to rescue. That's fine, but why then elaborate on a duty to rescue law in Argentina in the second paragraph instead of confining oneself to good samaritan law?

Second, the first paragraph starts out with stating that Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection. This assumes that the reader is familiar to the reason why good samaritans would need protection at all, which is a concept that people unfamiliar with compensation culture may not immediately understand. However, I expect this is not the case for many readers, in particular those residing in Europe. If this article is to be taken as a reliable source on the worldwide situation, the legal protection for good samaritans is only an issue in north America and China. I propose that this paragraph be altered to first explain why legal protection is needed. 2.243.114.236 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Good Samaritan law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Overdose Prevention?

[edit]

The article gives the impression that it needs to be another person, with no mention of themselves ("bystanders", "help a stranger"). Some (not all) locations allow someone like a drug user who believes to be overdosing to call 911 without facing prosecution.

I am not sure if this topic should be split into a different article? Pennsylvania’s Good Samaritan Act allows a person overdosing to call 911 without prosecution. Canada's Bill C-244 (42,1) would amend (not yet passed, but close) to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - since there is no country-wide GS law (it's handled per province). The "Short Title" for the act is "Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act". http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Bill=C224&Parl=42&Ses=1

I found a page on the web that talks about "911 Good Samaritan Fatal Overdose Prevention Law" .. but could not find a Wikipedia article. http://www.drugpolicy.org/911-good-samaritan-fatal-overdose-prevention-law

Fact sheet with list of 32 US states http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Fact%20Sheet_State%20based%20Overdose%20Prevention%20Legislation%20%28January%202016%29.pdf


Here is a proposed amendment to the current Pennsylvania law. http://fox43.com/2017/04/25/proposed-bill-overdose-victims-must-seek-treatment-within-30-days-after-receiving-emergency-assistance-to-avoid-jail/

Should this be on Wikipedia? In this article? New article? 32 states have the law.. and we don't mention the self-Samaritan aspect in the article. --CoolCanuck eh? 04:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Good Samaritan law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Subtitles

[edit]

Updated to include additional subtitles in the "Common Features" section to make the article easier to scan for key information.

2:22pm, 27 January 2018

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Samaritan_law&oldid=1192317696"