Paramedic was an employee of the county emergency medical services, which was licensed to provide ambulance services and the administratrix did not present any evidence suggesting that defendants did not act in good faith viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the administratrix, the evidence showed, at best, that the defendants exercised bad judgment and acted negligently in caring for the decedent but this was not enough to show a lack of good faith for purposes of statutory immunity. Since plaintiff presented no evidence that defendants, emergency medical technicians, believed the defendant's conduct was unconscionable or that the circumstances required further investigation, even if the defendants exercised bad judgment and acted negligently, such conduct did not amount to a lack of good faith and, accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendants. § 31-11-8 provided immunity against liability for the paramedics' conduct. 751, 251 S.E.2d 250 (1978).īecause the totality of the paramedics' actions showed that the paramedics acted in good faith with the intent to save the decedent's life, O.C.G.A. Once licensed, providers of ambulance service are granted immunity from civil liability provided, however, emergency care is rendered in good faith. Immunity requires that one act in good faith. Legislature saw fit not to extend immunity to negligence of ambulance driver for injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents. Immunity not extended to negligence causing motor vehicle accident. § 31-11-8 when liability was not founded upon the rendition of health care but was based upon the intentional torts of assault and robbery because an ambulance attendant removed the passenger/plaintiff's ring. Code section only applies to rendition of health care. § 31-11-8(a) because the ambulance did not render emergency care, but rather, it was the ambulance's inability to provide prompt emergency care that formed the basis of a lawsuit alleging damage from a delay in emergency transport. 751, 251 S.E.2d 250 (1978).Īmbulance service was not entitled to emergency care providers' immunity under O.C.G.A. This section is carefully drawn so as to grant immunity to providers of ambulance service only for their acts and omissions in rendering such emergency care. Immunity granted only as to acts or omissions in rendering emergency care. Men of common intelligence would not differ as to application of the statute's provisions. This section is definite and certain in the statute's meaning. Legislative intent behind this section, see Anderson v. For comment, "Good Samaritan Laws - Legal Disarray: An Update," see 38 Mercer L. For annual survey on local government law, see 65 Mercer L. For article surveying judicial and legislative developments in Georgia's tort laws, see 31 Mercer L. Liability of persons rendering emergency care generally, § 51-1-29. Statement of emergency vehicle driver's duty of care with regard to other drivers and pedestrians in operation of vehicle, §§ 40-6-74,40-6-99. The immunity provided in this Code section shall apply only to those persons who perform the aforesaid emergency services for no remuneration.A physician shall not be civilly liable for damages resulting from that physician's acting as medical adviser to an ambulance service, pursuant to Code Section 31-11-50, if those damages are not a result of that physician's willful and wanton negligence.Any person, including agents and employees, who is licensed to furnish ambulance service and who in good faith renders emergency care to a person who is a victim of an accident or emergency shall not be liable for any civil damages to such victim as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering such emergency care to such victim.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |