Good Samaritan Case Analysis

Listen to this article

Although the decision affirms that of the court of appeals, nevertheless, the two courts’ emphases are different.

The court of appeals’ decision focused primarily on the passive nature of the care that the Switlicks provided:

“Suggesting that a bloody and vomiting woman lie in a bed rather than on a floor, covering her with a quilt, leaving her alone in a dark room for six or more hours, and periodically asking if she felt all right does not, we conclude, constitute emergency care.” Mueller v. McMillian Warner Ins. Co., 2005 WI App 210, 287 Wis.2d 154, 704 N.W.2d 613, 622.

Later, the court wrote, “Stephani did nothing for Mueller she could not have done for herself, except waking her up during the night. Without cleaning Mueller’s wounds, Stephani had no way of knowing what her injuries were. Questioning Mueller in the dark made it impossible for Stephani to observe any physical changes.

And waking Mueller every hour or so does not indicate that Stephani treated her as someone whose state calls for ‘immediate action.’” Id., at 622-623.

Immediately after this comment, the court of appeals concludes its analysis by stating, “That nothing was done to make medical help available to Mueller for over six hours only underscores the fact that Stephani was not responding as if to an emergency.” Id., at 623.

The court also stated, “Nothing in the statute suggests any intention that an ordinary person should make care-giving decisions any longer than the emergency situation necessitates.” Id., at 621.

Thus, the court of appeals clearly recognized that whether a defendant sought professional medical help is relevant; however, the primary focus of the court’s analysis was the nature of the defendants’ actions.

In contrast, the focus in the Supreme Court’s decision is squarely on the fact that the Switlicks did nothing to obtain professional care, with little discussion of the limited nature of that care, which was so prevalent in the court of appeals’ decision.

In its initial statement of its holding, the Supreme Court states that “emergency care” refers to treatment “during the period before care could be transferred to professional medical personnel.” Par. 6.

Later, in setting forth its working definition of “emergency care,” the court limits the definition to care rendered, “Until professional medical attention is available.” Par. 37.

In setting forth the legislative purpose, the court found that it was to encourage care by laymen, “until professional medical care can be obtained.” Par. 40.

Later, the court uses the expression, “until better health care services are available.” Par. 42.

And three times, the court expressly limits immunity to care that is rendered, “before care can be transferred to professional medical personnel.” Pars. 45, 46, and 55.
The change in emphasis by the Supreme Court is a positive one.

	Related Links Wisconsin Court System Related Article Court limits Good Samaritan immunity

Under the court of appeals’ decision, a layperson could provide extensive medical care that he is unqualified to provide, even though professional help could have been sought, and would be immune from suit.

However, a layperson would be denied immunity if he did very little, such as the Switlicks did in this case, even though there was no feasible way to obtain professional help.

The Supreme Court’s decision properly places the primary focus on the availability of professional care.

Genuine emergency care should not be immune, if the defendant could easily have summoned professional care; however, even minimal care such as the Switlicks provided should be immune, if the facts were different, and it was impossible to obtain professional care.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.