What happened to the "good samaritian" law?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
jmk wrote:

A doctor refusing to stop and render aid for fear he might be sued???

I thought that these US-based lawsuits were exactly what the "Good
Samaritan" law passed so many years ago was designed to prevent? Is this
not the case anymore?

They are in effect in some states. They don't cover doctors.

No, that's not true. Here in Massachusetts, for example, Part I, Title XVI,
Ch. 112, 12B states: "No physician... who, in good faith, as a volunteer and
without fee, renders emergency care or treatment, other than in the ordinary
course of his practice, shall be liable in a suit for damages as a result of
his acts or omissions...".

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/112-12b.htm

--Gary

I know a doctor who won't wear a cadesus (however spelled on his
car because he fears being stopped by police at the scene of an
accident, thus exposing him to a lawsuit.

Dan, are you saying that doctor drives right past an accident site
without stopping to help the injured?

That's outrageous! Either (1) he should be defrocked, or whatever
they do to unethical docs, or (2) the laws that force him to do that
need to be changed right now!

vince norris

On 2005-07-10, Jimmy B. wrote:
I have to admit, the liability issue is one of the reasons that I don't
fly Angel Flights.

I think that might be being a tad extreme. No one (to my knowledge) has
ever been sued over the many thousands of Angel Flights. When I lived in
the US, I used to do occasional Angel Flight - the risk exposure from
liability is so much tinier than the risk to my own life and limb from
flying gliders on the weekend that I didn't even consider liability. I'd
have done many more Angel Flights had I owned an IFR capable plane (I
had to schedule club planes for the job since the C140 wasn't really
suitable).

I think it's easy to blow up liability risks out of all proportion
(mainly due to a few well publicized cases) meaning the rational mind is
being overriden by the irrational, emotional mind. You might as well not
go outside just in case you get struck by lightning.

Believe me, the rewards of Angel Flight far outweigh any liability
risks.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

I was PIC in a serious accident on an Angel Flight and my insurance rep.
told me there has never been a successful suit. FWIW.

The point of so much of today's legislation seems to be knee-jerk reactions
to 'borrowed trouble' or Chicken Little's "The sky is falling!"
--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2005-07-10, Jimmy B. wrote:
I have to admit, the liability issue is one of the reasons that I don't
fly Angel Flights.

I think that might be being a tad extreme. No one (to my knowledge) has
ever been sued over the many thousands of Angel Flights. When I lived in
the US, I used to do occasional Angel Flight - the risk exposure from
liability is so much tinier than the risk to my own life and limb from
flying gliders on the weekend that I didn't even consider liability. I'd
have done many more Angel Flights had I owned an IFR capable plane (I
had to schedule club planes for the job since the C140 wasn't really
suitable).

I think it's easy to blow up liability risks out of all proportion
(mainly due to a few well publicized cases) meaning the rational mind is
being overriden by the irrational, emotional mind. You might as well not
go outside just in case you get struck by lightning.

Believe me, the rewards of Angel Flight far outweigh any liability
risks.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"